Filed 10/27/20 P. v. Gix CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

FLOYD WAYNE GIX

Defendant and Appellant.

 B302894

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. TA055230)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of 

Los Angeles County, H. Clay Jacke, Judge. Dismissed.

Paul Stubb, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 

Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
2

INTRODUCTION

In 2000, a jury convicted appellant Floyd Wayne Gix of 

assault with a firearm (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(2))

1, corporal 

injury to spouse/cohabitant/child’s parent (§ 273.5, subd. (a)), 

false imprisonment by violence (§ 236), and terrorist threats 

(§ 422). Following the jury trial, the court found true the 

allegations regarding appellant’s two prior serious or violent 

felony convictions. (§§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667, subds. (a)-(i).) 

The trial court denied appellant’s motion to strike the prior 

convictions and imposed a sentence of 94 years and four months 

to life. We affirmed the judgment in our prior unpublished 

decision, People v. Gix (August 2, 2002, B146459) [nonpub.opn.]. 

On October 28, 2019, appellant filed a motion to correct a 

sentencing error. He argued that by relying on his out-of-state 

prior conviction for sentencing purposes, the court engaged in 

judicial fact finding “beyond merely identifying a prior 

conviction.” The trial court denied appellant’s motion, stating 

that he had “packaged and re-packaged the same issue, over and 

over again,” without success. Appellant appealed. 

Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief requesting that 

we independently review the record for error pursuant to People 

v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We directed counsel to 

send the record and a copy of the brief to appellant, and notified 

appellant of his right to respond within 30 days. We have 

received no response. 

1All further statutory references are to the Penal Code 

unless otherwise indicated.
3

DISCUSSION

We dismiss the appeal because appellant is not entitled to 

Wende review. “In an indigent criminal defendant’s first appeal 

as a matter of right, the Court of Appeal must independently 

review the record if appointed counsel represents he or she has 

found no arguable issues.” (Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 

Cal.4th 529, 535, citing Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; 

Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) A defendant is not entitled to such 

review “in subsequent appeals.” (People v. Serrano (2012) 211 

Cal.App.4th 496, 503; see also People v. Kisling (2015) 239 

Cal.App.4th 288, 290.) As this is an appeal from a motion for 

correction of a sentencing error, not a first appeal as a matter of 

right, appellant is not entitled to Wende review. Because neither 

appellant nor his counsel has raised any claims of error, we 

dismiss the appeal as abandoned. (See Serrano, supra, 211 

Cal.App.4th at pp. 503-504; Kisling, supra, 239 Cal.App.4th at p. 

292 & fn. 3.) 

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed. 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

COLLINS, J.

We concur:

MANELLA, P. J.

WILLHITE, J.