Filed 7/27/15 P. v. Samyuth CA2/8

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ROBERT SAMYUTH

,

Defendant and Appellant. B261660

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. B A 263569 )

APPEAL from a n order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. William C.

Ryan

, Judge. Affirmed

.

Richard B. Lennon

, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * * * * * * * * *2

Defendant and a ppellant Robert Samyuth appeals from a post judgment order

denying his petition for recall of sentence purs uant to Penal Code section 1170.126,

enacted by the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012. We affirm.

In 2004, defendant was convicted of arson of property. (Pen. Code, § 451,

subd. (d).) Def

endant was sentenced as a third strike offender to an indeterminate prison

term, in light of two prior serious felony convictions: attempted murder in case

N o. 93WF1578 (§ 187 , subd. (a)

, § 664); and attempted robbery in case N o. NA041884

(§ 211, § 664).

Following passage of the Th ree Strikes Reform Act, defendant filed a timely

petition for recall of sentence pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.126. The trial court,

on its own motion, appointed counsel to assist defendant in the processing of his petition.

On January 20, 2015, th e trial court issued its order denying defendant’s petition on the

grounds the current offense of arson on which defendant received his third strike sentence

is an enumerated serious felony. (§ 1192.7, subd. (c)(14).) The serious felony status of

the ars on charge rendered defendant ineligible for resentencing under the statutory

scheme

.

Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal of the trial court’s order. W e appointed

appellate counsel to represent defendant

. Appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to

People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 ( Wende ) in which no issues were raised. The

brief included a declaration from counsel that he reviewed the record and sent a letter to

d efendant explaining h is evaluation of the record. Counsel further declared he advised

d efendant of his right , under Wende

, to submit a supplemental brief within 30 days , and

fo rwarded copies of the record to defendant

. Defendant has not filed a supplemental

brief.

We have examined the entire record of the post judgment proceedings submitted to

this court, consisting of one volume of the clerk’s transcript, and are satisfied that

appointed counsel fully complied with h is responsibilities in assessing whether or not any3

colorable appellate issues exist . We conclude there are no argua ble appellate issues.

( People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; Wende

, supra

, 25 Cal.3d 436.)

DISPOSITION

The January 20, 2015 post judgment order denying defendant’s petition for recall

of sentence is affirmed.

GRIMES, J

.

WE CONCUR:

BIGELOW , P. J.

FLIER, J.