Opinion
E072953
09-30-2019
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KELLY FRANK MOORE, Defendant and Appellant.
Joshua L. Siegel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super.Ct.No. SCR46034) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Harold T. Wilson, Jr., Judge. Affirmed. Joshua L. Siegel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
On September 2, 1987, an information charged defendant and appellant Kelly Frank Moore with murder under Penal Code section 187 (count 1). The information also alleged that defendant used a knife in the commission of the crime under Penal Code section 12022, subdivision (b).
On January 25, 1988, defendant pled guilty to second degree murder (Pen. Code., § 187) and admitted the weapon-use enhancement (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced defendant to 16 years to life.
On February 8, 2019, defendant filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95. On April 2, 2019, the People filed a motion to strike defendant's petition.
On April 19, 2019, the trial court denied defendant's petition without issuance of an order to show cause. The court stated: "Court has read and considered Petition for Resentencing pursuant to PC1170.95. The Court finds that Petitioner does not satisfy the criteria in PC1170.95 and is not eligible for resentencing."
On May 31, 2019, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal from the court's order denying his petition for resentencing.
DISCUSSION
After 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 setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record. Pursuant to Anders, counsel identified the following issues to assist the court in its search of the record for error:
1. Whether the trial court erred when it denied defendant's request to continue the hearing on his resentencing petition;
2. Whether the trial court erred in denying defendant's resentencing petition, without issuing an order to show cause, before defendant had filed a reply to the People's motion to strike the petition, and before the statutory time for filing a defense had expired.
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, considered the issues listed by appellate counsel, and find no arguable issue for reversal on appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER
J. We concur: McKINSTER
Acting P. J. SLOUGH
J.