Filed 2/14/14 P. v. Jordan 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, D064290
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD161993)
MARK LAMAR JORDAN,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, David J.
Danielsen, Judge. Affirmed.
Mark Lamar Jordan, in pro. per.; and Michelle Rogers, under appointment by the
Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In 2002, a jury convicted Mark Lamar Jordan of attempted burglary. (Pen. Code,1
§§ 664, 459.) In bifurcated proceedings, Jordan admitted he had suffered three prison
priors, two felony priors and two strike priors. (§§ 667, subd. (a); 667.5, subd. (b); 668;
1192.7, subd. (c).) The court sentenced him to 25 years to life in state prison. In 2013,
the court denied his motion for resentencing brought under section 1170.126, because his
two prior felonies rendered him ineligible.
Appointed counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings in the
trial court. Counsel presents no argument for reversal but asks that this court review the
record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to
Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel refers to the possible but not arguable
issue of whether the trial court erred in failing to grant the resentencing motion.
We granted Jordan permission to file a brief on his own behalf and he did, arguing
for a reduced sentence because: (1) certain convictions should be stayed under section
654; (2) the judge's statements at sentencing, of which no transcript exists, favor the
reduction; (3) his conviction was for attempted burglary; therefore, he should have been
sentenced to only half of the total sentence imposed under section 664.
Our review of the entire record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436
and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issues referred to
by appellate counsel and Jordan has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues.
1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
O'ROURKE, J.
WE CONCUR:
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
NARES, J.
3