Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, No. 06WF3312, Thomas M. Goethals, Judge.
Heruvey Rudy Madera, in pro. per.; and Marcia R. Clark, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
FYBEL, J.
1. Introduction
In People v. Madera (May 14, 2010, G041943) (nonpub. opn.), we affirmed as modified a judgment entered after a jury found Heruvey Rudy Madera guilty of one count of carjacking (Pen. Code, § 215, subd. (a) [count 1]), one count of unlawfully driving or taking a motor vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a) [count 2]), three counts of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211 [counts 3, 5, & 6]), two counts of participating in a criminal street gang (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (a) [counts 4 & 9]), one count of dissuading a witness (Pen. Code, § 136.1, subd. (b)(1) [count 7]), one count of gang related graffiti (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (d) [count 8]), and one count of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, § 12021, subd. (a)(1) [count 10]). We remanded with directions to the trial court to correct various sentencing errors and to resentence Madera.
The trial court modified the judgment as directed and resentenced Madera to a total prison term of 15 years to life. After resentencing, Madera filed a notice of appeal, and we appointed counsel to represent him. Appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), setting forth the background of the case and requesting that we review the entire record. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), appointed counsel suggested we consider the issue whether the sentence of 15 years to life in prison was grossly disproportionate to the crime where the underlying offense did not involve serious bodily injury to the victim.
We have examined the entire record and counsel’s Wende/Anders brief. We looked for issues others than those raised by counsel, but after considering the entire record, we have found no reasonably arguable issue. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Madera was given the opportunity to file written arguments in his own behalf, and he filed supplemental briefs on June 10, June 27, and July 1, 2011. We have reviewed and considered Madera’s supplemental briefs but find nothing in them to suggest a reasonably arguable issue. We therefore affirm.
2. Facts/Resentencing
As Madera’s appeal challenges only the sentence imposed, it is unnecessary to recite the facts, which are set forth in our prior opinion, People v. Madera, supra, G041943. The disposition of the prior opinion stated:
“The matter is remanded with directions to the trial court to:
“1. Modify the judgment by striking the 10 year sentence enhancement pursuant to section 186.22(b)(1)(C) to count 2 and by exercising its discretion in selecting an enhancement term to count 2 under section 186.22(b)(1)(A).
“2. Modify the judgment to credit Madera with 807 days of actual credit and 121 days of conduct credit for a total of 928 days of presentence custody credit.
“3. Modify the judgment by striking the prison prior enhancement under section 667.5(b).
“4. Prepare an amended abstract of judgment, and forward a certified copy of it to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Adult Operations.
“As modified, and in all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.” (People v. Madera, supra, G041943.)
On remand, the trial court resentenced Madera in accordance with the disposition of our prior opinion. The trial court modified the judgment as directed and resentenced Madera to a term of 15 years to life in prison.
3. Analysis of Suggested Issue in Counsel’s Wende/Anders Brief
Appointed counsel suggests one potential issue: “Was the life sentence grossly disproportionate to the crime where the underlying offense did not involve serious bodily injury to the victim?” We find no merit to this potential argument. Madera committed a series of crimes on December 9, 24, and 28, 2006, resulting in convictions on 10 counts, including three counts of robbery, two counts of participating in a criminal street gang, and one count of carjacking. His sentence was not disproportionate to the crimes under federal or state constitutional standards. (Lockyer v. Andrade (2003) 538 U.S. 63; People v. Dillon (1983) 34 Cal.3d 441.)
4. Madera’s Supplemental Briefs
In his supplemental brief filed on June 10, 2011, Madera raises issues we rejected in our prior opinion. In his supplemental briefs filed on June 27 and July 1, 2011, Madera asserts his sentence should be modified to a determinate sentence. He argues California has the highest proportion of prisoners serving life sentences, few prisoners serving indeterminate sentences are ever released on parole, and his indeterminate sentence is much worse than a determinate one. None of these arguments affects the validity of Madera’s sentence. Madera also argues the trial court might have mistakenly believed he would serve less time with a life sentence than with a determinate sentence. Nothing in the record suggests the trial court was mistaken about the sentence imposed.
5. Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: RYLAARSDAM, ACTING P. J., MOORE, J.