Opinion
C088909
07-14-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TERAN CURTIS WASHINGTON, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. Nos. 17CF00734, 16CF04045, 17CF01949)
In a prior appeal, we vacated the sentence of defendant Teran Curtis Washington and remanded to allow the trial court to exercise its discretion to strike or dismiss a firearm enhancement imposed before Senate Bill No. 620 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) became law.
On remand, the trial court imposed the same sentence.
Appointed counsel for defendant has filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).)
Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
In case No. 16CF04045, defendant pled no contest to unlawfully possessing ammunition in August 2016. (Pen. Code, § 30305, subd. (a)(1).)
Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
At a November 2016 sentencing hearing, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on 36 months formal probation.
In July 2017, the trial court found defendant violated probation and revoked probation.
Regarding case No. 17CF00734, as we explained in our decision in defendant's prior appeal, in the midst of a state of emergency in February 2017 because of damage to the Oroville Dam, defendant pointed a shotgun at another and then fired the shotgun at a store's glass door and kept watch as his companion removed items from inside the store. (People v. Washington, supra, C085505 at p. 2.)
On our own motion, we take judicial notice of our opinion in defendant's prior appeal, People v. Washington (Aug. 28, 2018, C085505) [nonpub. opn.], wherein we "vacated [defendant's sentence] and the matter [was] remanded for the limited purpose of resentencing," and affirmed the judgment in all other respects. (Evid. Code, §§ 459, subd. (a) ["The reviewing court may take judicial notice of any matter specified in [Evidence Code] Section 452"], 452, subd. (d) [permitting a court to take judicial notice of records of "any court of this state"].) --------
Defendant pled no contest to burglary (§ 459) and being a felon in possession of a firearm (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)). Defendant also admitted to personally using a firearm in the commission of the burglary. (§§ 12022.5, subd. (a), 1192.7, subd. (c)(8).)
Regarding case No. 17CF01949, defendant pled no contest to maintaining a place for the manufacture of a controlled substance. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11366.5.)
At an August 2017 hearing, the trial court sentenced defendant on the three cases at issue in this appeal. The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of 13 years eight months in state prison, consisting of: the upper term of three years for the burglary offense in case No. 17CF00734; a consecutive upper term of 10 years for the firearm enhancement in case No. 17CF00734; a concurrent term of three years (the upper term) for the firearm offense in case No. 17CF00734; a concurrent term of two years (the middle term) for the offense in case No. 17CF01949; and a consecutive term of eight months (one-third the middle term) for the offense in case No. 16CF04045 (imposition of sentence for that offense having been suspended when defendant was placed on probation).
The trial court imposed the following fees and fines: (1) for each case, the statutory minimum $300 restitution fine, pursuant to section 1202.4; (2) a $300 probation revocation fine in case No. 16CF04045, pursuant to section 1202.44; (3) for each case, a suspended fine of $300, pursuant to section 1202.45; (5) for each conviction, a $40 conviction assessment, pursuant to section 1465.8; and (6) for each conviction, a $30 court operations assessment, pursuant to Government Code section 70373.
Though defendant ostensibly appealed from the criminal judgments in case Nos. 17CF00734 and 17CF01949, we observed in footnote 2 of our prior opinion that defendant did not raise any issues on appeal regarding case No. 17CF01949.
In our decision in defendant's prior appeal, we ruled that even though imposition of the firearm enhancement imposed by the trial court was mandatory when sentence was imposed, Senate Bill No. 620's changes to the Penal Code applied retroactively. Therefore, we remanded to allow the trial court to exercise its newly granted discretion to strike or dismiss the firearm enhancement it imposed. We explained that we "remanded for the limited purpose of resentencing. In all other respects, the judgment [was] affirmed." (People v. Washington, supra, C085505 at p. 4.)
On remand, the trial court imposed the same sentence, explaining why it was not in the interests of justice to strike or dismiss the firearm enhancement.
Defendant timely appealed.
II. DISCUSSION
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/S/_________
RENNER, J.
We concur:
/S/_________
HULL, Acting P. J.
/S/_________
HOCH, J.