People v. Smith CA4/1

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The facts of the underlying offenses are fully set forth in our prior opinion. We will not repeat them here. (People v. Moore, et al., supra,

D074567.)

DISCUSSION

As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to review the record for error. To assist the court, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified the following possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: 1. Did the lower court abuse its newly granted discretion under section 12022.53, subdivision (h) by denying Smith’s motion for resentencing to strike his enhancements for personal use of a handgun under section 12022.53, subdivision (b)? 2. Did the lower court abuse its newly granted discretion under section 12022.53, subdivision (h) by not considering whether to reduce the base term of the enhancement to three or four years, as authorized by section 12022.53, subdivision (b)? In his supplemental brief, Smith argues his sentence amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. In support of his contention, Smith includes an article and other materials which are not part of the…