Filed 4/6/21 P. v. Crow der CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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). Thi s opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CHAUN CEY CROWDER , Defend ant and Appellant. D077981

(Super. Ct. No. R IF1602244 )

APPEAL from a n order of the Superior Court of Riverside County,
Mac R. Fisher, Judge. Affirmed. Lizabeth Weis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2017, a jury convicted Chauncey Crowder of voluntary manslaughter (Pen

. Code , § 192, subd. (a) ) as a lesser included offense of murder. The jury found true an allegation that he personally discharged a firearm during the crime ( § 12022.5, subd. (a) ) . Crowder admitted two serious felony prior convictions ( § 667, subd. (a)(1)) and two strikes ( § 667, subds. (b)

- (i))

.2

The court denied Crowder ’ s motion to strike the “ strike ” priors and

sent enced Crowder to an i ndeterminate term of 39 years to life. Crowder appealed and in March 2019 , this court affirmed the conviction in an unpublished opinion

. ( People v. Crowder (Mar. 19, 2019,
D074884 ) [nonpub. opn.]

. ) During the pendency of the appea l , the Legislature pa ssed S enate Bill No. 620 which permits the trial court to strike firearm enhancements. The Legislature also passed S enate Bill No. 1393 which permits trial courts to strike the serious felony priors. In our prior opinion , we held th a t Crowder was entitle d to request the trial court to exercise its newly enacted discretion to strike the priors and the enhancement. Accordingly, we remanded the case to the trial court to permit
the court to exercise its discretion

. On remand , the tria l court conducted a h earing on Crowder ’ s motions. The court considered the facts of the offense and the prior sentence. The court also reviewed Crowder ’ s prison record

. After the review, the trial court declined to exercise its new discretion
to strike the priors or the fi rearms enhancement. The court reinstated the original sentence. Crowder filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v

. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 ( Wende ) indicating counsel has not bee n able to identify an y arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende . We offered Crowder the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal but, he has not responded.3 STATEMENT OF FACTS The facts of the off

ense are fully set forth in our prior opinion. We will not repeat them here. DISCUSSION
As we have noted , appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks
the court to review the record for error. To assist the court in its revie w , and in compliance with Anders v

. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 ( Anders ) , counsel has identified a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal : Did the trial court abuse its discretion in declining to strike Cro wder ’ s serious felony priors ( § 667, subd. (a)(1)) and firearm enhancement ( § 12022.5, subd. (a))? We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders

. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Crowd er on this appeal.4 DISPOSITION The order denying Crowder ’ s motion to strike the serious felony priors
and the firearm enhancement is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

IRION, J.