Court Opinion

ID: 9945934
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-28 20:02:53.090841+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:24:11.309674
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/28/24 P. v. Singleton CA4/1
                 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

                COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                 DIVISION ONE

                                         STATE OF CALIFORNIA

 THE PEOPLE,                                                          D082337

           Plaintiff and Respondent,

           v.                                                         (Super. Ct. No. SCD147179)

 KELVIN L. SINGLETON,

           Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Lisa R. Rodriguez, Judge. Affirmed.
         Kelvin L. Singleton, in pro. per.; and Pauline E. Villanueva, under
appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
         Kelvin L. Singleton is serving a sentence for convictions in 2001 of

robbery (Pen. Code,1 § 211) and true findings on two alleged strike priors
(§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)) and two serious felony priors (§ 667, subd. (a)). The
court imposed an indeterminate term of 35 years to life under the three

1        All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
strikes law.2 There was a true finding on an alleged prison prior (§ 667.5,
subd. (b)), however the court struck the prior and did not impose an
additional term for that enhancement.
      In 2023, Singleton was identified as a person who might be eligible to
have the prison prior dismissed under Senate Bill No. 483 as an invalid
enhancement. Singleton filed motions for resentencing, including many
allegations but they were primarily directed at eliminating the enhancement.
      The trial court appointed counsel and received briefing. After
reviewing the record, the court concluded the prison prior was struck at the
original sentencing and therefore nothing remained for which the court could
grant relief.
      Singleton filed a timely notice of appeal. He also requests judicial
notice of a published appellate opinion and a request he made to the Superior
Court of San Luis Obispo County. We deny the request.
      Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating counsel has not been able to identify any
arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to
independently review the record for error as mandated by Wende. Singleton
has responded with a brief, an addendum to the brief, a letter and a request
for judicial notice. The vast bulk of the material does not deal with the
question raised by this appeal but expresses his many complaints about his
underlying sentence. Although the materials are lengthy we find they do not
raise any arguable issues for reversal of the specific order under review by
this appeal.

2    Singleton appealed and this court affirmed the judgment in an
unpublished opinion. (People v. Singleton (Dec. 21, 2001, D037600).)
                                       2
                                 DISCUSSION
      As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks
the court to review the record for error. To assist the court, and in
compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel
has identified a possible issue which was considered in evaluating the
potential merits of this appeal: Whether the court erred in finding Singleton
was not eligible for resentencing since the sentencing court struck the prison
prior in 2001.
      We have reviewed the record as required by Wende and Anders,
including the many pages of materials submitted by Singleton. We have not
discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel
has represented Singleton on this appeal.
                                DISPOSITION
      The order denying Singleton’s petition for resentencing is affirmed.

                                                       HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

CASTILLO, J.

RUBIN, J.

                                       3