Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County No. FMB008239. Rodney A. Cortez, Judge.
Stephen M. Lathrop, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
RICHLI, J.
Defendant and appellant Gregory Lamont McAfee appeals following a resentencing hearing. This is his second appeal. A jury found defendant guilty of possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, § 12021, subd. (a)(1)) (count 1), possession of heroin (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)) (count 4), possession of methamphetamine for purposes of sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378) (count 5), and possession of cocaine for purposes of sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351) (count 6). At a bifurcated court trial, defendant was found to have suffered two prior serious or violent felony convictions (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)), six prior prison terms (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)), and two prior possession of controlled substances for sale violations (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.2, subd. (c)). The trial court sentenced defendant to a total term of 53 years to life in state prison as follows: two consecutive 25-year-to-life sentences (counts 1 & 6), plus a determinate term of three years for one of the prior drug offense enhancements. It sentenced defendant to concurrent 25-year-to-life sentences on counts 4 and 5. The court also imposed, but stayed, sentences on the remaining prior conviction enhancement allegations. (People v. McAfee (Mar. 17, 2009, E044887) [nonpub. opn.].)
Defendant appealed, and this court affirmed his convictions; however, we ordered a limited remand for the purpose of holding a new sentencing hearing on the enhancement allegations, which were improperly stayed. Specifically, we held, “That portion of the judgment staying imposition of the punishment for the enhancements under Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b) and Health and Safety Code section 11370.2, subdivision (c) is reversed. The trial court is directed to hold a new sentencing hearing and either impose the enhancements or strike them in accordance with the dictates of Penal Code section 1385. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.” (People v. McAfee, supra, E044887.)
On remand, the trial court denied defendant’s request for a “formal full sentencing hearing.” The court then struck defendant’s prior prison term enhancements and second drug offense enhancement pursuant to Penal Code section 1385, with stated reasons for doing so, and resentenced defendant to the same sentence as previously imposed. Defendant appeals from the sentence imposed upon remand.
I
The details of defendant’s criminal conduct are not relevant to the limited issue raised in this appeal. Those details are set out in our prior unpublished opinion in People v. McAfee, supra, E044887.
Defendant appealed and, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493], setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting this court undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he has not done so. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the record for potential error.
An appellate court may reverse the penalty portion of a judgment without affecting the finality of the adjudication of guilt and direct the trial court to resentence the defendant. (People v. Pineda (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 443, 451; Pen. Code, § 1260.) “On remand with directions, after a judgment on appeal, the trial court has jurisdiction only to follow the directions of the appellate court; it cannot modify, or add to, those directions.” (People v. Oppenheimer (1965) 236 Cal.App.2d 863, 865-866.) Accordingly, the trial court properly denied defendant’s request for a “formal full sentencing hearing.”
We have completed our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
III
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: HOLLENHORST Acting P. J., McKINSTER J.