Filed 7/24/24 P. v. Wright 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 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,

Defendant and Appellant.

 D082770

 (Super. Ct. No. SCN189797)

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 felony 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 motion. 

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 (b)) was no longer valid 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. The 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 noted, 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

The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

BUCHANAN, J.

RUBIN, J.