Filed 1/8/20 P. v. Stevenson CA1/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CHARLES STEVENSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

A158502, A158503

(City & County of San Francisco

Super. Ct. Nos. SCN218679,

SCN223620)

In two prior appeals filed by defendant Charles Stevenson, we remanded the matters to the trial court with instructions to resentence defendant based on retroactive changes to sentencing laws that occurred during the pendency of those appeals. (People v. Stevenson (May 23, 2019, A152697) [nonpub. opn.]; People v. Stevenson (May 23, 2019, A155139) [nonpub. opn.].) Defendant now appeals from the sentencing orders issued upon remand.

Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and requests that we conduct an independent review of the record. Defendant was informed of his right to file a supplemental brief and did not do so. Having reviewed the record, we conclude there are no issues that require further briefing and affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In prior appeal People v. Stevenson (May 23, 2019, A152697) [nonpub. opn.] at pages *1 and *2, we affirmed defendant’s conviction for robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) and misdemeanor commercial burglary (§ 459) but remanded the matter “for the limited purpose of allowing the trial court to consider its discretion under Senate Bill No. 1393 to strike defendant’s prior serious felony enhancements.” The trial court had imposed a 20-year sentence in that case, consisting of an aggravated term of five years for robbery, (doubled under section 667 as a strike), two five-year serious felony enhancements, and time served on the misdemeanor commercial burglary count. (Id. at p. *2.)

In prior appeal People v. Stevenson (May 23, 2019, A155139) [nonpub. opn.], at page *2, we affirmed defendant’s conviction for first degree burglary (§ 459) and misdemeanor receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)) but remanded the matter “for resentencing limited to determining whether one or both of the prior serious felony enhancements should be stricken or dismissed” under Senate Bill No. 1393. The sentence in that case consisted of an aggravated term of six years for burglary plus two five-year serious felony enhancements, for a total of 16 years. (Id. at p. *1.)

On remand, the matters were heard by the same trial judge who had presided over both trials and imposed the original sentences. The prosecutor argued the trial court had already “exercised a significant amount of leniency toward [defendant]” by striking his prior strikes and that no further leniency was appropriate for someone who “is quite literally the definition of a career criminal.” Defense counsel urged the court to “strike each of the five year priors in each of the two cases” because defendant was committed to being a good father and to help mentor young offenders. Counsel also noted that no one was harmed in the burglary case. Defendant addressed the court and stated that his “only purpose in life is to be a good father, upholding citizen[], pay my taxes, and try to make what’s left of my life the best I can.” He said he had had time to reflect and was prepared to enter a program upon his release.

The trial court stated, “it is not a strong case for further leniency, because [defendant] has a long history of a very unproductive life, essentially, of crime.” The court noted that defendant absconded from Delancey Street in 1992 when he was given a chance, then “spent the majority of the 1990’s in prison.” Shortly after his release, he was arrested for “a hot prowl residential burglary” and sentenced to 11 years in prison; he committed the offenses in the instant cases just six months after his release. The court noted that 16 years was a “baseline” sentence for the robbery case and that the additional four years was justified based on the fact that defendant “perjure[d] himself” at trial. As to the burglary case, the court stated it was a “very serious” case in which a young woman was home and saw defendant reach into her bedroom. The court reinstated the original sentence in each case. Defendant timely appealed from both resentencing orders and we consolidated the appeals.

DISCUSSION

Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and asks this court to independently review the entire record to determine if it contains any issues which would, if resolved favorably to defendant, result in reversal or modification. We have examined the entire record and have found no reasonably arguable appellate issue, and we are satisfied that counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109–110; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

 

_________________________

Petrou, J.

WE CONCUR:

_________________________

Siggins, P.J.

_________________________

Fujisaki, J.

A158502, A158503/People v. Stevenson