Opinion
C080878
01-11-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANTHONY MICHAEL BLACKWELL, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. 03F07408)
Appointed counsel for defendant Anthony Michael Blackwell asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment.
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
"In 2004, defendant Anthony Blackwell was convicted of two counts of attempted voluntary manslaughter, two counts of assault and two counts of attempted robbery. Two years later, he brought a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the trial court, which was granted in part. As a result of the writ, defendant's two attempted robbery convictions were reversed. He was resentenced on the remaining voluntary manslaughter and assault convictions." He appealed the resentencing. (People v. Blackwell (Jan. 14, 2009, C055969) [nonpub. opn.] p. 1.)
Although this court rejected his appellate claims, we did find errors in the resentencing. The oral pronouncement of judgment indicated a sentence of 24 years 10 months. The minute order and abstract of judgment each indicated a total sentence imposed of 20 years 10 months. There was no oral pronouncement of judgment as to an enhancement on one count, no oral pronouncement that the sentences for the two assault convictions were stayed under Penal Code section 654, and no oral pronouncement of whether the sentence for the probation violation is to run concurrently or consecutively. Based on the obvious errors in both the oral pronouncement of judgment and the clerk's minutes, we could not determine which should prevail and remanded the matter for correction of the sentencing errors. (People v. Blackwell, supra, C055969, at pp. 11-12.)
The trial court resentenced defendant on April 7, 2009, to a term of 24 years 10 months. Defendant was not present at the resentencing, and had not received the amended abstract of judgment. In September 2014, defendant filed a motion claiming the trial court had not acted on the remittitur. The matter was referred to probation on the resentencing issues. The probation department recommended the trial court impose an aggregate term of 20 years 10 months. After considering the briefing and arguments of counsel and the probation report the trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of 20 years 10 months.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and requesting that we review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant.
Having examined the record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/S/_________
RENNER, J. We concur: /S/_________
RAYE, P. J. /S/_________
BLEASE, J.