Opinion
B300311
06-30-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. VICTOR BEE, Defendant and Appellant.
Randall Conner, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. BA450637) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, James R. Dabney, Judge. Affirmed. Randall Conner, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Jonathan Woods and Victor Bee forcibly removed Woods's girlfriend, Sharese Tenner, from a car wash bathroom. Bee lifted Tenner and, with Woods's assistance, put her in the backseat of Woods's car. When Tenner struggled to get out of the car, Woods pushed her back inside. Bee drove them away from the car wash.
A jury convicted Bee and Woods of kidnapping, and the trial court sentenced them to 21 years and 22 years in state prison, respectively. Bee's sentence consisted of the upper term of eight years, doubled under the three strikes law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(j), 1170.12), plus five years under Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a)(1), for a prior serious felony conviction.
Bee appealed. This court affirmed his conviction, but remanded the case to allow the trial court to exercise its discretion whether to strike the five-year enhancement the court imposed under section 667, subdivision (a)(1). (People v. Bee (Dec. 19, 2018, B280922) [nonpub. opn.].)
On remand, Bee asked the trial court to dismiss or strike the prior serious felony conviction enhancement. At the resentencing hearing, the court confirmed its original intention to impose the enhancement under section 667, subdivision (a)(1), declined to exercise its discretion to dismiss or strike the enhancement, and resentenced Bee to 21 years in state prison. Bee appealed again.
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent Bee on appeal. After reviewing the record, counsel filed a brief raising no issues. On December 24, 2019 we notified Bee he had 30 days to submit a brief or letter raising any grounds of appeal, contentions, or arguments he wanted the court to consider. We have not received a response.
We review the trial court's sentencing decisions for abuse of discretion and generally presume the court properly exercised its broad discretion. (People v. Sandoval (2007) 41 Cal.4th 825, 847; People v. Weddington (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 468, 492.) "The trial court has broad discretion with regard to sentencing, and its decision will be affirmed on appeal, so long as it is not arbitrary or irrational and is supported by any reasonable inferences from the record." (People v. King (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1281, 1323.)
Here, the trial court heard argument on whether the court should strike the enhancement under Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a)(1). The court's comments at the hearing indicate it considered the relevant factors before deciding whether to exercise its discretion to strike the five-year enhancement. The court concluded that, in light of the circumstances and Bee's active participation in the crime, it was inappropriate to strike or dismiss the enhancement. The court's sentencing decision was well within its discretion.
We have examined the record and are satisfied that appellate counsel for Bee has complied with his responsibilities and that there are no arguable issues. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284 ; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 118-119; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441-442.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
SEGAL, J. We concur:
PERLUSS, P. J.
FEUER, J.