People v. Hunt CA4/1

Filed 12/31/14 P. v. Hunt 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, D065058
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN320823;
SCN318127)
JUSTIN SCOTT HUNT,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, David L.
Berry, Judge. Affirmed.
Denise M. Rudasill, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Kamala Harris, Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Justin Scott Hunt pleaded guilty to burglary of an inhabited dwelling home (Pen.
Code,1 §§ 459, 460) and admitted that in the commission of the crime, a person other
than an accomplice was present in the residence. (§ 667.5, subd. (c)(21).) He also
1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
admitted an allegation that he had suffered a serious felony prior and a strike prior within
the meaning of the "Three Strikes" law. (§§ 211; 667, subds. (b)-(i); 1170.12.) In
exchange, the People dismissed another burglary charge and allegations regarding other
prison priors. His plea form stated he agreed to a sentencing range of between nine and
thirteen years.
The court recalled Hunt's previous robbery sentence in order to aggregate both
sentences. It sentenced him to twelve years eight months in prison as follows: two years
eight months on the underlying burglary; and consecutive terms of four years on his prior
robbery conviction; five years on his serious felony prior under section 667, subdivision
(a)(1); and one year for the prison prior.
DISCUSSION
There are no relevant facts to discuss in this appeal. Appellate counsel presents no
argument for reversal of the trial court's order, but asks this court to review the record for
error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal. 3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v.
California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), raising this possible but not arguable appellate
issue: "Whether the trial court erred by finding that the one-year prior prison
enhancement would be added to the sentence full strength at the end of the sentence even
if it had made the case it was attached to the subordinate term instead of finding that it
should be reduced to one-third the mid term if it had made the case it was attached to the
subordinate term."
We offered Hunt the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal and he not has
done so.
2
We have reviewed the entire record in accordance with Wende, supra, 25 Cal. 3d
436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, and have not found any arguable appellate issue.
Competent counsel has represented Hunt on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
O'ROURKE, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
McINTYRE, J.
3