Filed 7/24/24 P. v. Wr ight CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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). Th is opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.

FRED JASON WRIGHT

,

Defe ndant and Appellant. D082770

(Super. Ct. No. SCN18 9 797 )

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County,

Lisa R. Rodriguez, Judge. Affirmed.

Fred Jason Wright, in pro. per.; Bruce L. Kotler, under appointment by

the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In 2006, Fred Jason Wright was sentenced to an indeterminate term of

25 years to life for residential burglary with three strike priors plus 20 years

for four serious felon y prior convictions (Pen

. Code

, 1 § 667, subd. (a) (1) ) and

one year for a prison prior ( § 667.5, subd. (b)).

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code

.2

In 2022

, Wright filed a motion to modify his sentence in light of Senate

Bill No. 483

. The court appointed counsel and held a hearing on the mot ion.

The court found the prison prior ( § 667.5, subd. (b) ) was no longer valid

and struck it. The court denied Wright’s request to strike the “strike” priors

but struck three of the four serious felony priors

, which were part of the

original sentence. T he revised sentence was 25 years to life plus five years
for the remaining serious felony prior.

Wright 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 been able to identify any

arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to

independently review the record for error as mandated by Wende . We

advised Wright he could file is own brief on appeal . He has responded with a

supplemental brief. Wright’s submission does not raise any potentially

meritorious issues for reversal of the appeal.

The facts of the underlying offenses are not relevant to the analysis of

this appeal. We will omit a statement of facts.

DISCUSSION

As we have not ed

, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks

the court to independently review the record for error. To assist the court in

its review

, and in compliance with Anders v

. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738

( Anders )

, counsel has identified two possible issues that were considered in

evaluating the potential merits of this appeal :

1. Whether the court abused its discretion in failing to strike the

“strike priors” to avoid a life sentence.

2. Whether the court abused its discretion by refusing to strike all

of the serious felony priors.3

We have independently reviewed the record for error as required by

Wende and Anders . We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal

on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Wright on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

Th e judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

BUCHANAN, J.

RUBIN, J.