Filed 11/13/13 P. v. Barker CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E058685
v. (Super.Ct.No. FVI08614)
CURTIS DASHAWN BARKER, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Michael A. Smith,
Judge. (Retired judge of the San Bernardino Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice
pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.
Patrick E. DuNah, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Curtis Dashawn Barker appeals after the trial court
denied his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.126, known as the
1
Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (Prop. 36, as approved by voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 7,
2012)).1 Defendant filed a notice of appeal on May 8, 2013. We affirm.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On June 8, 2000, defendant was convicted of second degree robbery. (§ 211,
count 1.) The trial court found that he had two strike priors. (§§ 1170.12, subd. (a)-(d) &
667, subd. (b)-(i).) The court also found true the allegations that defendant had served
two prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), and that he was convicted of two serious
felonies within the meaning of section 667, subdivision (a)(1). The court subsequently
struck one of the prison priors and sentenced him to state prison for 25 years to life on
count 1, plus 11 years on the enhancements.
On February 19, 2013, defendant filed a pro. per. petition for resentencing under
section 1170.126. The court denied the petition since defendant’s current conviction was
for a serious offense, which made him ineligible for resentencing under section 1170.126.
(§ 1170.126, subd. (e)(1).)
ANALYSIS
After the notice of appeal was filed, this court appointed counsel to represent
defendant. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25
Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d
493], setting forth a statement of the case, a brief statement of the facts, and identifying
1 All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code, unless otherwise
noted.
2
one potential arguable issue: whether the trial court erred in denying defendant’s petition
for resentencing under section 1170.126.
Defendant was offered an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which
he has not done. Under People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an
independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
HOLLENHORST
J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ
P. J.
KING
J.
3
People v. Barker CA4/2
Combined Opinion