P.
P. v. Quinton CA4/1
Opinion
Opinion
Huffman, J.
DISCUSSION
As we have previously noted, appellate counsel has filed a brief indicating he is
unable to identify any argument for reversal and asks this court to review the record for
error as mandated by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. Although counsel has not separately
set out the possible, but not arguable, issue as required by Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738,
counsel has cited Anders, and the record and brief make clear there is only one possible
issue. That issue is whether Quinton, who is serving a third strike sentence following his
2003 conviction for a serious felony with two strike priors, is eligible for sentence
The facts of the underlying offense are not relevant to the issues before this court. Thus we will omit the traditional statement of facts. 2 modification under Proposition 36. He is not eligible for sentence modification given
that his third strike conviction was for a serious felony.
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 issues. Competent counsel has represented Quinton on this appeal.