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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

DARRIS WELLS, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B309739

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. TA079985)

APPEAL from an 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 enacted 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 jurisdiction, 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 (2012) 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.