Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County No. SCN203478, Joan P. Weber, Judge.
HALLER, J.
Duane Andrew Young appeals his sentence on remand after this court reversed one of three robbery convictions.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A jury convicted Young of three counts of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) and three counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm (§ 12021, subd. (a)(1)). The jury also found that Young personally used a firearm in the robberies within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivision (b). Young admitted that he had a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)), a prior serious/violent felony or strike conviction (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)) and had served four prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The court sentenced Young to 36 years in prison.
Further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
Young appealed, contending one of his robbery convictions and one of his felon in possession of a firearm convictions were not supported by substantial evidence. We reversed the robbery count, but affirmed the felon in possession of a firearm count. (People v. Young (Mar.7, 2007, D048545) [nonpub. opn.].)
On remand, the trial court sentenced Young to 30 years and eight months in prison, deleting the sentence imposed for the robbery count and the corresponding personal use of a firearm allegation.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief setting forth evidence in the superior court. 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. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel refers to as possible, but not arguable, issues: (1) whether Young was properly sentenced in accordance with this court's remand; (2) whether there was any other sentencing error; and (3) whether Young was appropriately credited for time served.
We granted Young permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded.
A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issues referred to by appellate counsel, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Competent counsel has represented Young on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: BENKE, Acting P. J., IRION, J.