Opinion
C093038
07-30-2021
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DAVID MICHAEL MURR, SR., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. 17CR002557
DUARTE, J.
Appointed counsel for defendant David Michael Murr, Sr., has asked this court to conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error in defendant's favor, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
On September 25, 2017, the victim came to defendant's house to free a woman he thought was being held against her will. Defendant argued with the victim before stabbing him through a window screen. The victim survived but a doctor considered his injuries life threatening. Defendant was charged with assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)) and special allegations that he caused great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)) and that he had four prior serious or violent felony convictions, justifying enhancements (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)) and strikes (§ 1170.12).
Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
On December 21, 2017, defendant pleaded guilty to the assault and admitted the special allegations for great bodily injury, three prior serious felonies, and one prior strike. The remaining special allegations were dismissed.
On February 20, 2018, defendant was sentenced to 26 years in prison based on the aggravating term of four years for the assault, doubled with the strike to eight years, three years for the great bodily injury enhancement, and 15 years for the then mandatory three prior serious offense enhancements of five years each.
Defendant appealed and we remanded for the trial court to exercise its new discretion to strike defendant's serious offense enhancements under Senate Bill No. 1393 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.). (People v. Murr (June 15, 2020, C088989) [nonpub. opn.].)
On October 24, 2020, on remand, the trial court held a resentencing hearing and heard arguments on whether it should exercise its discretion to strike any of the serious offense enhancements. The trial court found, given the totality of the circumstances, that a 21-year sentence was appropriate so it struck one of the prior serious felony enhancements, lowering defendant's sentence from 26 to 21 years.
Defendant appealed without seeking a certificate of probable cause.
DISCUSSION
Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural history of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days from the date the opening brief was filed. More than 30 days have elapsed, and defendant has not filed a supplemental brief. Our review of the record pursuant to Wende has disclosed no arguable errors in defendant's favor.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: Robie, Acting P. J., Mauro, J.