PEOPLE v. MACKBEE

No. B278768.

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHARLES ANTHONY MACKBEE, Defendant and Appellant.

Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Two.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

THE COURT:*

Defendant Charles Anthony Mackbee along with a codefendant was convicted in a jury trial of one count of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)),1 with findings the murder was committed during a robbery (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)), and that a principal was armed with a firearm (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1).) The trial court sentenced defendant to life without the possibility of parole on the murder count, plus an additional year for the firearm allegation.

On appeal in People v. Johnson et al. (Mar. 24, 2016, B256273), in a nonpublished opinion, this court concluded there was instructional error, reversed the judgment imposing a sentence of life without the possibility of parole, and vacated the special circumstance finding. We remanded to the trial court so that the People could elect whether to retry defendant on the special circumstance or to have the trial court resentence without the special circumstance finding.

On remand, the People elected not to retry the special circumstance allegation, and the trial court resentenced defendant to 26 years to life, comprised of 25 years to life for the murder plus one additional year for the firearm enhancement. Defendant timely filed a notice of appeal from the judgment after resentencing.

Defendant's appointed counsel on appeal filed an opening brief that raised no issues and requested independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. On April 6, 2017, we sent defendant a letter informing him of the nature of the brief that had been filed and advising him that he had 30 days to file a supplemental brief setting forth issues he wished this court to consider. We have received no response.

We have independently reviewed the entire record. We are satisfied that no arguable issues exist, and defendant has received effective appellate review of the judgment entered against him. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-279; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123-124.)

The judgment is affirmed.

FootNotes


* ASHMANN-GERST, Acting P. J., CHAVEZ, J., HOFFSTADT, J.
1. Unless otherwise indicated, all further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases