Filed 5/13/21 P. v. Wells CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

DA R RI S WELLS, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant. B 30 9739

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TA079985 )

APPEAL from a n order of the Superior Court of

Los Angeles County, Sean D. Coen , Judge. Dismissed

. Richard B. Lennon , under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

____________________________2 PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION

On September 5, 2006, defendant pleaded guilty to
attempted murder (Pen. Code

, 1 § 664

– 187, subd

. (a) ), and
admitted special allegations of discharge of a firearm (§ 12022.53,
subd. ( c )) and infliction of great bodily injury (§ 12022.7)

. 2 The

trial court sentenced defendant to 32 years , 20 of which

constituted the firearm enhancement

. On August 11, 2020, defendant filed a motion to strike the
firearm enhancement under the trial court’s authority pursuant
to section 12022.53, subdivision (h), which was en acted in 2017
through Senate Bill No. 620 (Stats. 2017, ch. 682, § 2.) The trial

court denied the motion on November 12, 2020 , stating it had no
jurisdiction because defendant’s judgment already was final. The
court further stated that even if it had jur isdiction, it would not

exercise its discretion to strike the enhancement. 3 Defendant
timely appealed.
We appointed counsel, who filed a brief identifying

no issues and asking us to follow the procedures under

1 Further unspecified statutory citations are to the

Penal Code.

2 Contrary to the reporter’s transcript, the minute order indicates that defendant pleaded no contest to the attempted murder charge, and admitted to an enhancement under

section 12022.53, subdivision (b), not subdivision (c). We

need not resolve this discrepancy for purposes of this appeal.

3 The trial court also conducted a hearing pursuant to People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261, and ordered the mitigation material submitted by defendant and a transcript of the proceedings forwarded to the Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation.3

People v. Serrano (201 2 ) 211 Cal.App.4th 496. We notified
defendant that he could file a supplemental brief. He did not do

so. We thus have no independent duty to review the record for
arguable issues. ( People v. Cole (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 1023,
1034, review granted Oct. 14, 2020 , S264278 [“[W]e reject the

notion that the Constitution compels the adoption or extension of

[ People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436] procedures (or any subset
of them) for appeals other than a criminal defendant’s first
appeal of right because, beyond that appeal, there is no right to
the effective assistance of counsel.”].) We dismiss this appeal as
abandoned. ( Cole

, at p. 1023, review granted. )

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

BENDIX, J.

We concur:

ROTHSCHILD, P. J. FEDERMAN, J. *

* Judge of the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of

the California Constitution.