Opinion
D075996
11-06-2019
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KEVIN LEYMON REDD, JR., Defendant and Appellant.
John P. Dwyer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. SWF1303480) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside County, John D. Molloy, Judge. Affirmed. John P. Dwyer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In July 2016, a jury convicted Kelvin Leymon Redd, Jr. of three counts of robbery, one count of burglary and one count of first degree murder. The jury found firearm allegations to be true and found true the special circumstance of murder during a robbery. Redd was sentenced to life without parole plus 35 years.
Redd appealed his conviction and this court affirmed the judgment in April 2019. (People v Redd (Apr. 5, 2019, D074716) nonpub. opn.].)
In March 2019, Redd filed a petition under Penal Code section 1170.95 seeking resentencing. Redd claimed he was not the actual killer and was not a major participant of the murder. He claimed under current law he could not be convicted of first degree felony murder. The court appointed counsel for Redd.
The prosecution filed its response stating in part: "a review of readily available records contained in the court's judicial access database demonstrates petitioner was convicted of first degree murder with a robbery-murder special circumstance that would have required the jury to find petitioner intended to kill or was a major participant acting with reckless indifference. (See CALCRIM 703; see also Opin. D074716.)"
At a May 31, 2019 hearing, the court summarily denied Redd's petition. Redd filed a timely notice of appeal.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating he has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Redd the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The facts of the underlying offenses and Redd's participation in those offenses are fully set forth in our prior opinion in case No. D074716. We will not repeat them here.
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief asking this court to review the record for error. To assist this 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 he considered in evaluating the merits of this appeal: Whether the trial court erred in summarily denying Redd's petition without an evidentiary hearing.
We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Redd on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J. WE CONCUR: HALLER, J. AARON, J.