Opinion
A131822
09-09-2011
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMES I. MESA, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCR452927)
James I. Mesa (Mesa) appeals from a judgment of conviction imposed after a jury found him guilty of numerous crimes. His attorney has filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record, pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (see Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738), in order to determine whether there is any arguable issue on appeal. We find no arguable issue and affirm.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In August 2005, a jury convicted Mesa as follows: counts 2, 6, and 10, for assault with a firearm (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)); counts 3, 8, 11, and 12, for unlawful possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, § 12021, subd. (a)(1)); count 4, for carjacking (Pen. Code, § 215, subd. (a)); count 5, for robbery (Pen. Code, § 211); and count 7, for taking or driving a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)). The jury also found true the allegations that Mesa used a firearm in his commission of the offenses alleged in counts 2, 4, 5, and 10. (Pen. Code, §§ 12022.5, subd. (a)(1), 12022.53, subds. (b) & (c).) Mesa admitted to the court that he was on bail at the time of the offenses and had suffered prior convictions. (§§ 667, subd. (a) & (b)-(i), 667.5, subd. (b), 1170.12, 12022.1.) The court sentenced Mesa to a total term of 54 years in state prison.
Mesa appealed his conviction and sentence (People v. Mesa (June 15, 2007, A112921) [nonpub. opn.].) On June 15, 2007, this court affirmed the convictions but remanded for resentencing. In August 2007, the California Supreme Court granted a petition for review and transferred the case to this court for reconsideration of our reversal of the upper term sentences.
On September 19, 2007, we affirmed the upper term sentences and remanded for resentencing for correction of the other sentencing errors identified in our decision of June 15, 2007. In particular, the trial court was directed to do the following on remand: (1) reduce the sentence on counts 2 and 10 from three years to two years; (2) strike a one-year prior conviction enhancement; (3) correct the abstract of judgment to show that a concurrent term on count 8 was not stayed; and (4) impose enhancements under Penal Code section 12022.5, subdivision (a) on counts 2 and 6; as to the unstayed consecutive sentence on count 2, the enhancement should be two years, eight months (one-third of the middle term, doubled for the prior strike).
At the resentencing on April 14, 2011, Mesa was represented by counsel. The trial court made all of the changes to Mesa's sentence as directed by this court, except that, as to count 2, the court imposed the enhancement under Penal Code section 12022.5, subdivision (a) as one-third the middle term (one year, four months), without doubling it for the prior strike. In addition, as to the unstayed consecutive sentence on count 10, the trial court on remand corrected an enhancement imposed under Penal Code section 12022.5, subdivision (a) to be one-third the middle term (one year, four months) rather than the four months originally imposed. The defense did not object to the terms of sentence imposed by the court.
This appeal followed.
II. DISCUSSION
Mesa's appellate counsel represents in the opening brief in this appeal that he wrote to Mesa and advised him of the filing of a Wende brief and his opportunity to file his own supplemental brief. We have not received any supplemental submission from Mesa.
The trial court did not err in calculating the term of the enhancement as to count 2 as one-third the middle term, without doubling it for the prior strike. (People v. Sok (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 88, 93-94.) The term of the enhancement on count 10 was also properly calculated at one-third the middle term.
We find no arguable issues on appeal.
There are no legal issues that require further briefing.
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NEEDHAM, J. We concur. JONES, P. J. BRUINIERS, J.