Opinion
D082720
03-19-2024
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. NATHAN LEE POWERS, Defendant and Appellant.
Nathan Lee Powers, in pro. per.; and Laura R. Vavakin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Riverside County, No. RIF10001948, Gary Polk, Judge. Affirmed.
Nathan Lee Powers, in pro. per.; and Laura R. Vavakin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
HUFFMAN, ACTING P.J.
In 2014, Nathan Lee Powers was convicted of second degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187). A firearm enhancement under section 12022.53, subdivision (d) was found true. Powers was sentenced to 15 years to life for the murder conviction plus 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
Later, the court mistakenly believed Powers had pleaded guilty to count 2 and had admitted four prison priors (§ 667.5, subd. (b)) and imposed and stayed an additional two years concurrently for count 2 plus four years for the prison priors. Powers was awarded 1400 days of custody credits.
The following day, the court corrected the errors regarding count 2 and the priors. Count 2 was dismissed as were the prison priors "nunc pro tunc."
In 2023, Powers filed a petition seeking pretrial custody credits and seeking resentencing on multiple grounds including legislative changes and ineffective assistance by trial counsel.
The trial court did not appoint counsel for Powers but did grant Powers' request for a resentencing hearing.
The court reviewed the record and concluded Powers had received the 1400 days of pretrial credits and that count 2 had been dismissed as were the prison priors.
Powers filed a timely notice of appeal.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Powers the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal. He has responded with a voluminous package of briefs and assorted exhibits. Powers raises many complaints about the handling of this case. He seeks complete resentencing, however, he has not raised any arguable issues for reversal on appeal, given the state of the record.
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to review the record for error. To assist the court in its review of the record, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Whether the trial court erred when the day after Powers' January 27, 2014 sentencing it dismissed count 2 and four prison prior enhancements and ordered the dismissal "nunc pro tunc" to correct the January 27, 2014, minute order rather than recalling Powers' sentence and resentencing him.
We have reviewed the record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Powers on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The order denying Powers' petition for resentencing is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: IRION, J., CASTILLO, J.