Opinion
C083372
05-26-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TYRON LEE DANIELS, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. 05F03867)
Appointed counsel for defendant Tyron Lee Daniels has filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and 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 (Wende).) After reviewing the entire record, we affirm the order.
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
In 2006, a jury found defendant guilty of multiple counts of robbery and burglary. The trial court sentenced him to serve an aggregate prison term of 25 years. (People v. Daniels (Nov. 2, 2009, C052984) [nonpub. opn.].)
In September 2016, defendant filed a motion for modification of sentence, resentencing, and immediate release on parole. Attached to the motion, he included a Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation form indicating he met the youth offender criteria pursuant to Penal Code section 3051 and setting a parole hearing date of May 7, 2019. Defendant contended (1) setting the parole hearing date four years out was a "form of sentence" the trial court had jurisdiction to review and (2) his 2005-2006 arrest and sentencing constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The trial court dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural history of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days from the date the opening brief was filed. To date, defendant has not filed a supplemental brief. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. Consequently, we affirm the order.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
/s/_________
HOCH, J. We concur: /s/_________
MAURO, Acting P. J. /s/_________
RENNER, J.