Filed 8/28/20 P. v. Meadows CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

FRANK EDWARD MEADOWS, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B306132

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. YA031093)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Hector M. Guzman, Judge. Affirmed.

Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________________________
2

Frank Edward Meadows, Jr., appeals from an order 

denying his motion for modification of sentence. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

In 1999, a jury found Meadows guilty of first degree 

residential burglary. (Pen. Code, § 459.)1 Allegations that 

Meadows had sustained two prior serious felony robbery 

convictions were found to be true. The trial court sentenced 

Meadows to 35 years to life: 25 years to life under the “Three 

Strikes” law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i) & 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) for 

the burglary, plus a consecutive term of 10 years for the two prior 

serious felony convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)). This court 

affirmed the judgment (People v. Meadows (Oct. 22, 2001, 

B142112) [nonpub. opn.]).

On January 9, 2020, Meadows filed a motion for 

modification of his third strike sentence under newly-enacted 

section 1016.8. (Stats. 2019, ch. 586, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 2020.) The 

statute provides, in pertinent part, that a plea bargain “that 

requires a defendant to generally waive unknown future benefits 

of legislative enactments, initiatives, appellate decisions, or other 

changes in the law that may occur after the date of the plea is not 

knowing and intelligent.” (§ 1016.8, subd. (a)(4).) Meadows 

argued in his motion that section 1016.8 requires vacation of his 

third strike sentence because his two prior serious felony robbery 

convictions followed plea bargains that pre-dated enactment of 

the Three Strikes law, and the “retroactive application” of the 

Three Strikes law to the robbery convictions deprived him of the 

benefit of the “plea bargain contract[s] by rendering [them] 

1 Further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
3

substantially less beneficial.”2 On January 24, 2020, the trial 

court summarily denied the motion by minute order, stating 

Meadows had not “stated a valid legal ground to support his 

request” for modification of sentence. 

Meadows filed a timely notice of appeal, and this court 

appointed counsel for him. After examination of the record, 

counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this 

court to follow the procedures set forth in People v. Serrano

(2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496 (Serrano). On July 23, 2020, we sent 

a letter to Meadows and his appointed counsel, advising 

Meadows that within 30 days he could personally submit any 

contentions or issues he wanted us to consider, and directing 

counsel to send the record and opening brief to Meadows

immediately. Meadows timely filed a supplemental brief, raising 

the contention set forth below.

DISCUSSION

Because Meadows’s appeal is not his first appeal of right 

from his conviction, he is not entitled to our independent review 

of the record pursuant to Wende or its federal constitutional 

counterpart, Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738. (See

People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 119; Serrano, supra, 211 

Cal.App.4th at p. 503; Pennsylvania v. Finley (1987) 481 U.S. 

551, 559.)3 He is entitled, however, to file a supplemental brief—

2 Meadows’s prior robbery convictions were from 1991 and 

1992. California’s Three Strikes law became effective in 1994. 

(People v. Anderson (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 587, 590; People v. 

Reed (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1608, 1610, fn. 2.)

3 Under Serrano, in a criminal appeal in which Wende does 

not apply, counsel who finds no arguable issues is still required to 

(1) inform the court that counsel has found no arguable issues to 
4

which he has done here—and to our review of his contentions. 

(See Serrano, at p. 503; cf., Ben C., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 544, 

fn. 6; Ben C., at pp. 554–555 (dis. opn. of George, C. J.).)

In his supplemental brief, Meadows argues his third strike 

sentence must be vacated under section 1016.8 and case law 

because his plea bargains in his prior robbery cases were not 

knowing, intelligent, or voluntary, as he did not know in 1991 

and 1992 when he entered the pleas that those robbery 

convictions could be used to increase his punishment in a future 

criminal case under the Three Strikes law later enacted in 1994. 

As set forth above, section 1016.8 states that a plea bargain 

that waives “unknown future benefits” in the law is not knowing 

and intelligent. (§ 1016.8, subd. (a)(4).) Enactment of the Three 

Strikes law did not provide a “benefit” (e.g., a reduction in 

punishment) to criminal defendants. Thus, section 1016.8 is 

inapplicable to Meadows’s contention that his third strike 

sentence is invalid because his prior plea bargains (the prior 

strikes) were not knowing, intelligent, or voluntary. His 

contention also fails under case law, which provides that a 

conviction after a guilty plea that pre-dates enactment of the 

Three Strikes law may be used as a strike under the Three 

Strikes law. (People v. Sipe (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 468, 475-478-

479; see also Gonzales v. Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 

1302, 1306-1308.)

be pursued on appeal; (2) file a brief setting out the applicable 

facts and law; (3) provide a copy of the brief to appellant; and 

(4) inform the appellant of the right to file a supplemental brief. 

(Serrano, supra, 211 Cal.App.4th at p. 503, citing 

Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529, 544 (Ben C.).)
5

We are satisfied that Meadows’s counsel has fully complied 

with his responsibilities. (See Serrano, supra, 211 Cal.App.4th at 

p. 503.) Based on our review of the record, the applicable law, 

and Meadows’s supplemental brief, we conclude there is no 

arguable issue and, for the reasons set forth above, affirm the 

order denying the motion for modification of sentence.

DISPOSITION

The January 24, 2020 order denying Meadows’s motion for 

modification of sentence is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

CHANEY, J.

We concur:

ROTHSCHILD, P. J.

SINANIAN, J.*

* Judge of the Superior Court, assigned by the Chief 

Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California 

Constitution.