Opinion
B303801
08-17-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROLAND RICHARD KING, Defendant and Appellant.
Adrian K. Panton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NA059030) APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Judith L. Meyer, Judge. Affirmed. Adrian K. Panton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
____________________
We review this appeal under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We affirm. Code citations are to the Penal Code.
A September 29, 2004 information charged Roland King with 50 counts of robbery under section 211 and three counts of attempted robbery under sections 664 and 211. On March 24, 2005, the trial court sentenced King to 34 years. The appellate record does not include details of the underlying crimes or trial court proceedings.
On November 18, 2019, King filed a motion under section 3051 and People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261 (Franklin). He requested the trial court take judicial notice of documents attached to the motion—a mitigation report and a psychological evaluation—and forward them to the California Department of Corrections to use in a mandated youth offender parole hearing.
Defense counsel represented King at the November 21, 2019 Franklin hearing. King's presence was waived. The trial court admitted the documents into evidence and ordered them forwarded to the California Department of Corrections.
King filed a notice of appeal on December 30, 2019. He appealed from the trial court's November 21, 2019 order, but stated his basis for appealing was a "Resentencing Error."
We appointed counsel to represent King. On June 23, 2020, counsel filed a Wende brief raising no issues and asking this court to review the record independently. Counsel advised King he had 30 days to file a supplemental brief.
King filed a supplemental brief on July 6, 2020. In this brief, he raised an argument unrelated to the order from which he appealed. He contended the trial court misspoke when it sentenced him to 34 years in 2005. This claim has nothing to do with the trial court's November 21, 2019 order admitting evidence and completing proceedings under Franklin. King thus did not raise any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.
We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied King's counsel fully complied with his responsibilities. There are no arguable issues for reversal on appeal. (See Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
WILEY, J. We concur:
GRIMES, Acting P. J.
STRATTON, J.