Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Monterey County Super. Ct. No. SS990390.
Rushing, P.J.
Defendant, Timothy Wayne Hughes appeals from an order denying a motion for modification of sentence in excess of jurisdiction. In May 2000, defendant was convicted of a total of 36 counts including multiple counts of forcible lewd acts upon a child (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (b)), rape with a foreign object (Pen. Code, § 289, subd. (a)) and kidnapping (Pen. Code, § 207, subd. (a)). A number of enhancement allegations were also found to be true. Defendant was sentenced to 268 years to life in state prison. On appeal, this court struck two 25 year to life terms imposed. As a result, the defendant’s sentence was reduced to a term of 215 years and four months to life. Thereafter, this court again affirmed the validity of the sentence in an appeal from an order denying defendant’s petition for writ of corum nobis.
See People v. Hughes (July 11, 2003, H022186) [nonpub. opn.] and People v. Hughes (July 3, 2008, H030788) [nonpub. opn]. On the court’s own motion, we will take judicial notice of this court’s opinions in those prior appeals.
On March 19, 2010, defendant filed a motion for modification of sentence in excess of jurisdiction. The trial court denied the motion and this timely appeal ensued.
The minute order from the trial court in this matter incorrectly enumerates the basis of defendant’s conviction. Both the actual counts are misstated and the conviction is listed as obtained through guilty pleas. This court’s opinion in People v. Hughes (July 11, 2003, H022186) [nonpub. opn.] correctly lists the procedural history of the case and correctly identifies the counts of which the defendant was convicted by jury. We will direct the trial court to correct the minute order accordingly.
On appeal, we appointed counsel to represent defendant in this court. Appointed counsel filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no specific issues. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument in his own behalf within 30 days. In response defendant has filed a very lengthy supplemental brief asserting a multitude of issues relating to his underlying conviction and his sentence. Specifically, defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to modify without holding an “actual innocence” hearing; that the trial court erred in not granting the motion because the underlying conviction was not supported by substantial evidence; and that he is entitled to a judgment of “acquittal.” Defendant also asserts that he received ineffective assistance of counsel both below and on appeal. Defendant has previously raised most, if not all of these claims in his prior appeals.
However, pursuant to our duty to review defendant’s contentions, we have reviewed his claims and find that his brief fails to raise any issue warranting further analysis or briefing by the parties. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.) This court has, on two prior occasions, reviewed, in detail, all claims arising out of defendant’s conviction and subsequent challenge to his sentence. Nothing in either the defendant’s supplemental brief or in the current record before us, which we have independently reviewed, points to a cognizable error by the trial court in denying his motion or otherwise raises any new issue warranting further appellate review.
Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, and People v. Kelly, supra, 40 Cal.4th 106 we conclude that there is no arguable issue on appeal.
Disposition
The trial court is directed to modify the minute order to correctly reflect the counts of which defendant was actually convicted, and to correct the conviction reference to: conviction by jury trial. As modified, the order appealed from is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: PREMO, J., ELIA, J.