Filed 8/25/20 P. v. Shorter CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ANTHONY SHORTER,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B301955

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. YA054743)

THE COURT:

In 2003, defendant and appellant Anthony Shorter was 

convicted of three counts of first degree burglary, three counts of 

receiving stolen property, and one count of theft. Three prior 

serious felony allegations and “strike” allegations were also found 

true. Defendant’s total sentence was 90 years to life. Defendant 

appealed the judgment, and we affirmed. (People v. Shorter

(July 7, 2005, B174700) [nonpub. opn.].)
2

On February 27, 2015, defendant filed a petition for recall 

and resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.18, 

subdivisions (a) and (f).1 The trial court granted his petition in 

part; his total prison sentence remained 90 years to life. 

Defendant appealed, arguing that his theft conviction under 

section 484e, subdivision (d) [theft of access cards or account 

information], must be reduced to a misdemeanor pursuant to 

Proposition 47. We rejected his argument and affirmed the 

judgment, concluding that section 484e did not fall within the 

scope of section 1170.18. (People v. Shorter (Mar. 8, 2016, 

B263972) [nonpub. opn.].)

The California Supreme Court granted defendant’s petition 

for review (S233177), and on August 16, 2017, the matter was 

transferred back to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration in 

light of People v. Romanowski (2017) 2 Cal.5th 903.

On September 27, 2017, we remanded defendant’s case to 

the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine the 

value of the stolen access card information and then to 

“determine if resentencing [defendant] would . . . pose an 

unreasonable risk to public safety.” 

On February 26, 2018, the trial court held a resentencing 

consideration hearing and reduced defendant’s section 484e, 

subdivision (d), conviction to a misdemeanor. In so ruling, the 

trial court noted that “the current sentencing as to counts 1 and 2 

[and 6] and any other enhancements . . . are not affected by the 

appellate court opinion or the remittitur. The only issue dealt 

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code 

unless otherwise indicated.
3

with count 5,” which was the section 484e, subdivision (d), 

offense. 

“On September 30, 2018, the Governor signed Senate Bill 

1393 which, effective January 1, 2019, amend[ed] sections 667[, 

subdivision] (a) and 1385[, subdivision] (b) to allow a court to 

exercise its discretion to strike or dismiss a prior serious felony 

conviction for sentencing purposes. [Citation.]” (People v. Garcia

(2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 961, 971.) The newly amended statutes 

prompted defendant to file a motion to strike or dismiss his prior 

serious felony enhancements pursuant to sections 667, 

subdivision (a)(1), and 1385. 

The trial court summarily denied his motion on 

September 19, 2019, with a notation to “see previous denials.” 

Defendant timely filed a notice of appeal on October 21, 

2019. 

Counsel was appointed to represent defendant in 

connection with this appeal. After examination of the record, 

counsel filed an “Opening Brief” in which no arguable issues were 

raised. Counsel wrote to defendant, “explaining [his] evaluation 

of the record and [the] filing of the” brief that raised no arguable 

issues. He also provided defendant with “a copy of the brief and 

the transcripts and the record on appeal and . . . informed him of 

his right to file a supplemental brief to bring to the court’s 

attention any issues that he believes may be addressed by this 

court.” 

On June 15, 2020, defendant filed a supplemental brief. 

Although largely illegible, it appears that defendant is claiming 

that because the trial court reduced his section 484e, subdivision 

(d), conviction to a misdemeanor, it was required to strike or 
4

dismiss his prior serious felony enhancements pursuant to 

section 667, subdivision (a)(1). 

We have examined the entire record2 and we are satisfied 

that defendant’s appellate counsel has fully complied with his 

responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. 

Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441 (Wende).) We are not convinced 

by the argument raised in defendant’s supplemental brief. As 

noted in our prior opinions and by the trial court, defendant was 

convicted of several crimes; only his offense in count 5 was 

implicated in our prior decision, and the trial court only 

resentenced defendant on that one count. As the remainder of 

his sentence stands, so too do the enhancements.

Defendant has, by virtue of counsel’s compliance with the 

Wende procedure and our review of the record, received adequate 

and effective appellate review of the judgment and sentence 

entered against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 

U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123–124.)

The trial court’s order is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

____________________________________________________________

ASHMANN-GERST, Acting P. J. CHAVEZ, J. HOFFSTADT, J.

2 We hereby grant defendant’s request for judicial notice and 

have considered those documents as part of our independent 

review.