Court Opinion

ID: 9698939
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 20:04:33.911963+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:30:22.165609
License: Public Domain

Filed 8/25/23 P. v. Baldon CA3
                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                      THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                                    (San Joaquin)
                                                            ----

 THE PEOPLE,                                                                                   C096418

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                          (Super. Ct. No.
                                                                                    STKCRFE19910008335)
           v.

 ARTHUR LEE BALDON,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Appointed counsel for defendant Arthur Lee Baldon filed an opening brief that
sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine
whether there are any arguable issues on appeal, pursuant to People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Finding no arguable errors that would result in a disposition
more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.

                                                             1
                                   I. BACKGROUND
       In 1992, a jury found defendant guilty of first degree murder and found true an
allegation that he personally used a firearm in committing the murder. At the time of the
murder, defendant was 20 years old.
       In 2020, defendant filed a request pursuant to People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th
261 (Franklin) and In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439 to make a record of evidence
relevant at an eventual youth offender parole hearing. The trial court appointed counsel
for defendant and set a scheduling hearing. After the trial court set a Franklin hearing,
defendant’s appointed counsel filed a motion asking the trial court to resentence
defendant. Defendant’s motion conceded that such a resentencing was foreclosed by
controlling precedent. (See People v. Lizarraga (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 201, 207 [grant
of Franklin hearing does not permit resentencing after judgment is final]; accord People
v. White (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1229, 1238 [“a Franklin hearing does not reopen a
final judgment or sentencing”].)
       At the Franklin hearing, the trial court granted defendant’s request to send 303
pages of records to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation for use at a future
youth offender parole hearing. The trial court denied defendant’s request for
resentencing.
       Defendant timely appealed from the denial of resentencing.
                                    II. DISCUSSION
       Appointed counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural
history of the case and requests this court review the record and determine whether there
are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was
advised by counsel of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days from the date
the opening brief was filed. More than 30 days have elapsed, and defendant has not filed
a supplemental brief.

                                             2
       Though Wende requirements generally “do not apply to an appeal from the denial
of postconviction relief,” we have exercised our discretion to conduct an independent
review of the record. (People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 226, 232.) We find
no arguable errors that are favorable to defendant. Accordingly, we will affirm the trial
court’s order.
                                  III. DISPOSITION
       The order denying defendant’s request for resentencing is affirmed.

                                                           /S/

                                                 RENNER, J.

       We concur:

       /S/

       EARL, P. J.

       /S/

       HULL, J.

                                             3