Filed 4/2/21 P. v. Knight CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. CLARENCE KNIGHT,
Defendant and Appellant. D0 77877

(Super. Ct. No. CR46053 )

APPEAL from a n order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Howard H. Shore, Judge. Affirmed. Clarence Knight, in pro. per.; and Alex Coolman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 1979, a jury convicted Clarence Knight of first degree murder (Pen

. Code , 1 § 187). The jury also found Knight personally used a firearm in the commission of the offense

. Knight was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 25 years to life, consecutive to various other convictions.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.2

Knight appealed his conviction and this court af firmed in a published opinion filed October 17, 1980

. ( People v

. Knight (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 201 ( Knight )

. ) In 2019, Knight filed a pro

. per

. petition for resentencing under
section 1170.95. The court appointed counsel and obtained briefing from the

pa rties. After considering the briefing, the record of conviction , and the prior opinion of this court , the trial court determined Knight was the actual killer
and thus , had not demonstrated prima facie showing of eligibility under
section 1170.95. The cou rt denied the petition by written order. Knights 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 issue s for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende . We offered Knight the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal. Knight has responded with a supplemental brief.
We will discuss his brief below.
STA TEMENT OF FACTS The facts of the 1979 crime are set forth in our prior opinion. The opinion recites that Knight shot and killed the victim and confessed. ( Knight , supra , 111 Cal.App.3d 201.) We will not repeat the facts here.
DISCUSSION
As we have not ed appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to review the record for error. Counsel has not identified the possible issues that were considered in evaluating the merits of this appeal. To that extent, counsel has not complied with the mandate of Anders v

. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 ( Anders ). Counsel does argue the Wende procedure should be used to process no merit appeals from denial of3

postconviction petitions such as in this case. Since we are applying Wende
standards to this r eview we do not need to address the arguments concerning the applicability of the Wende process. Although counsel has failed to comply with Anders , there has been no prejudice to Knight and our review of the record has not been hindered. The
record is st raightforward an d demonstrates that Knight, as the actual killer, is statutorily ineligible for relief under section 1170.95. Knight submitted a supplemental letter brief. In that brief , Knight discusses the fa c ts of his 1979 trial. He recites some of t he facts from his perspective

. He acknowledges he confessed to being the killer, but it was not true. Knight was protecting the codefendant. He argues that under his version of the facts a jury could not convict him as the actual killer should
there be another trial. This appeal is not from the trial and we have already affirmed the conviction in our prior opinion. Nothing on Knight ’ s submission raises any arguable issues for reversal on appeal

. 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 Knight on this appeal

.4 DISPOSITION The order denying appellant ’ s petition for resent encing under
section 1170.95 is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

BENKE, Acting P. J.

O'ROURKE, J.