Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County No. CR52848, David J. Danielsen, Judge.
IRION, J.
In 1981 Timothy O'Neil Charity pleaded guilty to second degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)). The court sentenced him to prison for 15 years to life. On November 10, 2010, Charity filed a petition for writ of coram nobis in superior court. On November 9 the court denied the petition. Charity appeals.
BACKGROUND
According to the petition for writ of error coram nobis, when Charity entered prison the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation calculated a maximum eligible parole date of October 15, 1995. On June 9, 2010, the Board of Parole Hearings found Charity unsuitable for parole and denied parole for three years, the shortest period available under Proposition 9, the "Victims' Bill of Rights Act of 2008: Marsy's Law, " which amended Penal Code section 3041.5. In his petition, Charity contended that in view of the calculation and the parole denial, he was serving a longer sentence than he reasonably expected at the time of his plea, violating the ex post facto clause and subjecting him to cruel and unusual punishment. The petition asked the trial court to vacate the sentence.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) counsel lists as possible, but not arguable, issues whether the petition for writ of coram nobis was the correct procedure for seeking enforcement of the plea agreement and, if so, whether the issues in the petition were meritorious.
We granted Charity permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has filed a document entitled "supplemental petition for writ of habeas corpus." In the document, Charity repeats his ex post facto argument and requests a new parole hearing with a maximum one-year deferral. Charity also requests judicial notice of various exhibits relating to other cases. We grant the request for judicial notice solely for the purpose of our consideration of the document Charity has filed. We conclude there is no ex post facto violation and Charity is not entitled to a new parole hearing at this time. (In re Russo (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 144.)
A review of the record pursuant to Wende and Anders, including the possible issues listed pursuant to Anders, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Charity has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: NARES, Acting P. J.HALLER, J.