Opinion
B310546
09-23-2021
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. NORMAN E. DIXON, Defendant and Appellant.
Karyn H. Bucur, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. TA144025, Kelvin D. Filer, Judge. Affirmed.
Karyn H. Bucur, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
BAKER, J.
Defendant Norman Dixon (defendant) threatened a woman with a screwdriver at an ATM and took cash she intended to deposit. A trial jury found him guilty of first degree robbery. (Pen. Code, § 211.) Defendant was sentenced to a total term of 22 years in state prison: the upper term of six years, doubled because he sustained a prior qualifying conviction under the Three Strikes law (§§ 667(b)-(i), 1170.12), plus ten years imposed pursuant to section 667(a)(1) for having two prior serious felony convictions. This court affirmed the judgment on appeal but remanded to give the trial court the opportunity to consider whether it wished to exercise newly granted discretion (Sen. Bill No. 1393 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) §§ 1-2) to strike or dismiss the section 667(a)(1) enhancements. (People v. Dixon (Feb. 3, 2020, B293530 [nonpub. opn.].)
Undesignated statutory references that follow are to the Penal Code.
The trial court exercised its discretion to strike one of defendant's two prior strike convictions.
On remand, defendant asked the trial court to impose a sentence of five years in prison. The court agreed to strike the section 667(a)(1) enhancements, but declined to otherwise reduce defendant's sentence, reasoning defendant “very easily could have been convicted of three robberies, ” had an extensive criminal history, and was on probation when he committed the robbery. The trial court accordingly resentenced defendant to 12 years in state prison.
Defendant cited Los Angeles County District Attorney's Special Directive 20-08 (2020), which, among other things, directs deputy district attorneys to dismiss or withdraw certain enhancements in pending cases and not oppose certain motions for resentencing. At defendant's sentencing hearing on remand, the prosecution made no argument in opposition to defendant's request. The trial court stated “the election of a new district attorney[ ] [h]as absolutely nothing to do with the court's thought processes and [its] rationale” for its sentence.
Defendant appealed and this court appointed counsel to represent him. After examining the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues. On May 19, 2021, this court advised defendant he had 30 days to personally submit any contentions or issues he wanted us to consider. We received no response.
We have examined the appellate record and are satisfied defendant's attorney has complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issue exists. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278-82; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 122-24; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: RUBIN, P. J., MOOR, J.