People v. Dunsmore CA4/1

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The facts of the offenses are set forth in our previous opinion, (People v. Dunsmore, supra, D057645). We will not repeat them here, except to note the record shows Dunsmore was the sole perpetrator of the criminal acts.

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 in its review, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel

2 has identified the following possible issues which were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: 1. Whether the trial court prejudicially erred in failing to appoint counsel. 2. Whether the trial court erred in denying appellant’s petition for resentencing. In his brief, Dunsmore lists a wide range of complaints. He contends appellate counsel in this appeal and the prior appeal were ineffective for not providing a better record. He complains about his original conviction and the calculation of custody credits, fees, and fines. He baldly asserts the trial court was mistaken and his offense comes within the resentencing statute as amended by Senate Bill No. 775. In short, Dunsmore’s…