Filed 5/14/15 P. v. Arnett CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 The opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. JESUS LAMAR ARNETT, Defendant and Appellant. G051101 (Super. Ct. No. FSB1200158)

O P I N I O N

Appeal from an order of the Superi or Court of San Bernardino County, Michael A. Smith, Judge. (Retired judge of the San Bernardino Su p. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed. Nancy L. Tetreault, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
* * *2 Jesus Lamar Arnett appeal s from the trial court’s order denying his petition
to recall his sentence under Penal Code secti on 1170.126 (all statutory references are to the Penal Code). Arnett’s appointed counsel filed a brief under the procedures outlined
in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 ( Wende ). Counsel summarized the facts and procedural history of the case, and cited possible legal issues, but asserted no specific appellate claims, and asked this court to re view the record to de termine whether there were any arguable matters. Counsel subm itted a declaration stating she thoroughly reviewed the entire record, as did an attorney at Appellate Defender’s, Inc. Counsel advised Arnett she was filing a Wende brief, provided him a copy of the brief, would make the appellate record available to him, and advised Arnett he could personally file a supplemental brief on his own behalf rais ing any issues he believed worthy of consideration. Counsel did not argue against he r client or assert the appeal was frivolous. She did not move to withdraw as counsel, but advised Arnett he could ask the court to relieve her as counsel. We gave Arnett 30 days to file a supplemental brief, but he has not responded. We have reviewed the r ecord, found no arguable issues, and therefore affirm the judgment.
F ACTS AND P ROCEDURAL H ISTORY The facts and procedural history are recounted in our prior opinion affirming Arnett’s convic tions and sentence. ( People v. Arnett (Dec. 23, 2014, G050397 [nonpub opn.].) Briefly, in Ma y 2012, a jury convicted Jesu s Lamar Arnett of two counts of forgery (§§ 475, subd. (a), 476). The trial court found Ar nett suffered two prior felony
convictions in 2000 for lewd or lascivious conduct against a child under the age of 14 (§ 288, subd. (a)), declined to strike either of the prior convictions ( People v. Romero (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1418, 1434; § 1385) and sentenced Arnett as a third strike offender under sections 667, subdivisions (b )-(i) and 1170.12, su bdivisions (a)-(d). The court imposed a term of 25 years to life for fo rgery, plus three consecutive one-year terms3 because Arnett had served three separate pr ison terms within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). In October 2014, Arnett filed a pe tition for resentencing under section 1170.126. In November 2014, the trial court denied the petition.
D ISCUSSION Following the Wende guidelines, we have review ed counsel’s brief and the entire appellate record and discern no arguable issue. This includes counsel’s suggestion
we consider whether the trial court correc tly determined Arnett was ineligible for resentencing under section 1170. 126, and whether Arnett was entitled to be present when the court denied the petition for resentencing . Arnett has not availed himself of the opportunity to file a supplemental brief ( People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 111 [appellate court must address issues raised personally by appellant in

a Wende proceeding]), nor has he requested to have appellate counsel relieved. Consequently, we affirm the judgment. ( Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 443.)
D ISPOSITION The order is affirmed.

ARONSON, J.

WE CONCUR:

O’LEARY, P. J.

BEDSWORTH, J.