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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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. BA263569)

APPEAL from an 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 appellant Robert Samyuth appeals from a postjudgment order 

denying his petition for recall of sentence pursuant 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).) Defendant was sentenced as a third strike offender to an indeterminate prison 

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

No. 93WF1578 (§ 187, subd. (a), § 664); and attempted robbery in case No. NA041884 

(§ 211, § 664). 

Following passage of the Three 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, the 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 arson charge rendered defendant ineligible for resentencing under the statutory 

scheme. 

Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal of the trial court’s order. We 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 

defendant explaining his evaluation of the record. Counsel further declared he advised 

defendant of his right, under Wende, to submit a supplemental brief within 30 days, and 

forwarded copies of the record to defendant. Defendant has not filed a supplemental 

brief. 

We have examined the entire record of the postjudgment proceedings submitted to 

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

appointed counsel fully complied with his responsibilities in assessing whether or not any 
3

colorable appellate issues exist. We conclude there are no arguable appellate issues. 

(People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) 

DISPOSITION

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

of sentence is affirmed.

GRIMES, J.

WE CONCUR:

BIGELOW, P. J. 

FLIER, J.