Opinion
D074806
03-20-2019
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FREDERICK JUSTIN WEEKLY, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.SCD263909) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court San Diego County, Louis Hanoian, Judge. Affirmed.
A jury convicted Frederick Justin Weekly of first-degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)). The jury also found true an allegation that Weekly personally used a firearm inflicting injury (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). The court sentenced Weekly to an indeterminate term of 25 years to life for the murder conviction plus a consecutive term of 25 years to life for the firearm allegation. On appeal, this court affirmed the conviction and the finding on the enhancement but remanded the case to the trial court to permit it to exercise its newly granted discretion to strike the enhancement. This court also directed the trial court to correct the restitution order.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
The facts and procedure of the original trial are fully set forth in our prior opinion following the first appeal. (People v. Weekly (Mar. 16, 2018, D071294) [nonpub. opn.].) --------
On remand, the trial court declined to strike the enhancement and reinstated the original sentence. The restitution order had previously been corrected and the abstract of judgment amended. Weekly 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 issue for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Weekly the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.
DISCUSSION
In compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified the following possible, but not arguable issue for our consideration in our review of the record: Whether the trial court abused its discretion in declining to strike the firearm enhancement.
We have reviewed the entire record as mandated by Wende and Anders. We have not identified any arguable issue for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Weekly on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J. WE CONCUR: BENKE, Acting P. J. IRION, J.