Opinion
2d Crim. B309382
06-10-2021
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. IVAN QUINTANA, Defendant and Appellant.
Will Tomlinson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Superior Court County of Ventura No 2016037607 Bruce A. Young, Judge
Will Tomlinson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
GILBERT, P. J.
Ivan Quintana appeals a superior court order denying his 2020 motion “to dismiss his Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a)(1) sentencing enhancement” following a remand order from a decision of this court. In 2018, Quintana was convicted of second degree robbery (§ 211); escape by force or violence (§ 4532, subd. (b)(2)); resisting an executive officer (§ 69, subd. (a)); and battery on a peace officer (§ 243, subd. (c)(2)). The court sentenced him to a nine year eight month sentence that included a five-year enhancement for a prior serious felony conviction under section 667, subdivision (a)(1). In 2020, we ruled, among other things, that because of a change in the law, trial courts have discretion to strike that five-year enhancement. We remanded the case for the trial court to determine whether it would exercise its discretion to strike the five-year enhancement.
All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
On October 28, 2020, the trial court declined to modify the sentence. Quintana appealed from that order.
We appointed counsel to represent Quintana on this appeal. After examination of the record, his counsel was not able to find any arguable issues on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief requesting the court to make a review under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
We sent notice to Quintana of his right to file a supplemental brief. In his brief Quintana claims his appointed appellate counsel should not have filed a Wende brief. Given the record, there is no showing that his counsel has not provided adequate assistance or erred by filing a Wende brief.
Quintana claims that an August 27, 2018, trial court minute order requires prison authorities to immediately provide him an “anti drug [and] alcohol program.” That minute order provides that the court “recommends that the defendant participate in a counseling or educational program.” His claim about prison authorities allegedly not complying with their obligations to provide rehabilitation programs is not part of the subject matter of this appeal. His notice of appeal only challenges the trial court's order declining to strike the five-year sentencing enhancement. Quintana's brief fails to make an argument on that issue.
After examination of the record, we are satisfied that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441, 443.)
The order is affirmed.
We concur: YEGAN, J., TANGEMAN, J.