People v. Richardson

Full title: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. EVERETT MACK RICHARDSON…

Court: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR

Date published: Nov 13, 2019

B296652 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 13, 2019)

Opinion

B296652

11-13-2019

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. EVERETT MACK RICHARDSON, Defendant and Appellant.

Ann Krausz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

CURREY, J.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YA095925 APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Alan B. Honeycutt, Judge. Affirmed. Ann Krausz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Appellant Everett Mack Richardson pled no contest to second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211)¹ and admitted a prior strike conviction (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12) and a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced him to nine years in state prison, consisting of a lower term of two years, doubled to four years based on his prior strike, plus a five-year prior serious felony enhancement.

1 Further statutory references are to the Penal Code. --------

Richardson, while self-represented, filed a petition for resentencing under Senate Bill No. 1393 requesting the trial court exercise its discretion to strike or dismiss the five-year prior serious felony enhancement. The trial court denied the petition on January 18, 2019.

Richardson timely appealed, and we appointed counsel to represent him. On July 23, 2019, appellate counsel filed a brief raising no issues and asking us to review the record independently. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Richardson did not respond to our letter advising him of his right to file supplemental briefing.

We have examined the entire record, and are satisfied no arguable issues exist in the appeal before us. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278-279; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 443.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

CURREY, J. WE CONCUR:

WILLHITE, Acting P. J.

COLLINS, J.