Filed 6/5/24 P. v. Winn CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

DONALD WINN,

Defendant and Appellant. D082903

(Super. Ct. No. FSB150 1 224 )

APPEAL from a n order of the Superior Court of San Bernardino

County, Ronald M. Christianson, Judge. (Retired Judge of San Bernardino

Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal.

Const.) Affirmed.

Donald Winn, in pro. per.; and Theresa Osterman Stevenson

, under

appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.2

In 2016, a jury convicted Donald Winn of conspiracy to possess

phencyclidine (PCP) (Health and Saf

. Code

, § 11378.5 ; Pen

. Code

, 1 § 182

, subd. (a)(1) ). The jury also found true a gang enhancement under

section 186.22, sub d ivision (b)(1). The court found true serious felony priors

( § 667, subd. (a)) and strike priors under section 667, subd ivision s (b)

- (i).

The court denied Winn’s request to dismiss the strike priors and

imposed a total sentence of 35 years to life in prison. The court stayed the

term for the gang enhancement.

Winn appealed a nd this court affirmed the judgment with modification

of the fee assessments. ( People v. Winn ( Sept . 1 9 , 2018, D074045) [nonpub.

opn.] .)

In 2023, Winn filed a nonstatutory “motion for reconsideration ” seeking

dismissal of the gang enhancement. The trial court found the judgment was

final in 2019 and therefore denied the motion without a hearing.

Winn filed a timely notice of appeal.

Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadi llo

(2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 ( Delgadillo ). Counsel has not identified any potentially

meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to exercise

its discretion to independently review the record in the same fashion as we

would do in a cas e controlled by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436

( Wende ). We advised Winn of his right to file his own brief on appeal. He has

filed a short response which does not present any arguable issues for reversal

on appeal.

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified

.3

We discussed the facts of the of fenses in our original opinion in this

case. ( People v. Winn

, supra , D074045 .) We will not repeat that discussion

here.

DISCUSSION

As we have noted

, appellate counsel has filed a Delgadillo brief and

does not identify any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal.

We have exercised our discretion to independently review the record for error.

Our review has not discovered any potentially meritorious or arguable issues

for reversal on appeal. In his submission

, Winn has not presented any

bri efing as contemplated by the Delgadillo procedure. Competent counsel

has represented Winn on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The order denying Winn’s post judgment motion for reconsideration is

affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

CASTILLO, J.

RUBIN, J.