Opinion
H048987
07-08-2021
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BRETT JONES, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Monterey County Super. Ct. No. 18CR011172
Bamattre Manoukian, J.
After a jury trial, defendant Brett Jones was found guilty of failing to register as a sex offender (Pen. Code, § 290, subd. (b)), failing to register as a sex offender based on an out of state conviction (§ 290.005, subd. (c)), and misdemeanor driving without a license (Veh. Code, § 12500, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced defendant to serve three years eight months in prison. Defendant appealed, and this court reversed the judgment and remanded the matter for a possible retrial on the two counts of failing to register as a sex offender. (People v. Jones (Jan. 5, 2021, H046958) [nonpub. opn.] (Jones).) On remand, the trial court dismissed the two counts of failing to register as a sex offender on the prosecutor's motion, and the trial court resentenced defendant to 180 days for misdemeanor driving without a license with 180 days credit for time served.
Unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.
On appeal from the trial court's resentencing, defendant's appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) that states the case but raises no issues. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf within 30 days. That period has elapsed, and we have received no response from defendant.
On April 21, 2021, defendant filed a request to represent himself on appeal. On May 5, 2021, we denied his request. (People v. Scott (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 550, 560 561.)
Pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have reviewed the entire record and determined that there are no arguable issues on appeal. We affirm the judgment.
On May 5, 2021, we granted defendant's request for judicial notice of case No. H046958, defendant's prior appeal. The underlying facts of defendant's offenses are summarized in our prior unpublished opinion in Jones, supra, H046958, at pages 2 through 3.
On January 28, 2019, defendant was charged by information with failing to register as a sex offender (§ 290, subd. (b); count 1), failing to register as a sex offender based on an out of state conviction (§ 290.005, subd. (c); count 2), failing to inform authorities of an address change (§ 290.013, subd. (a); count 3), and misdemeanor driving without a license (Veh. Code, § 12500, subd. (a); count 4). During motions in limine, the trial court granted the prosecution's request to amend counts 1 and 2 to charge defendant with failing to register as a sex offender based on an out of state conviction in violation of sections 290, subdivision (b) and 290.005, subdivision (c) and to dismiss count 3. Count 4 was subsequently renumbered as count 3.
Defendant represented himself at trial. The jury found him guilty of counts 1, 2, and 3 as amended. The trial court sentenced defendant to a total term in prison of three years eight months.
Defendant appealed, and this court reversed the judgment after concluding that the trial court's determination of whether the conduct underlying defendant's out of state conviction required him to register as a sex offender in California was a question for the jury to decide (Mathis v. United States (2016) __ U.S. __ ; People v. Gallardo (2017) 4 Cal.5th 120), the trial court committed instructional error, and insufficient evidence supported the registration convictions. (Jones, supra, H046958, at p. 2.) We remanded the matter for possible retrial on counts 1 and 2 and for resentencing. (Id. at p. 19.)
On remand, the trial court dismissed counts 1 and 2 on the prosecutor's motion. Defendant represented himself at the resentencing hearing. On March 23, 2021, on count 3, the trial court resentenced defendant to 180 days in county jail with 180 days credit for time served. The trial court found that defendant had satisfied any fines and fees with his excess custody credits and stated that no fines and fees would be imposed.
II. Discussion
Having carefully reviewed the entire record, we conclude that there are no arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441 443.)
III. Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: ELIA, ACTING P.J., DANNER, J.