P. v. Colvin CA1/3 filed 8/20/26

Filed 8/20/26 P. v. Colvin CA1/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
ROYCE LAMONT COLVIN,
Defendant and Appellant.

A175767

(City and County of San Francisco
Super. Ct. No. CRI17013308)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
After Royce Lamont Colvin’s prior appeal, this court remanded the matter for resentencing.He now appeals from the resulting sentence. His counsel filed a brief raising no issues and asking this court to review the record to determine whether there are arguable issues for appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) After our review, we find none and affirm.
A jury convicted Colvin of firstdegree murder and robbery. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 211; undesignated statutory references are to this code.) It found true allegations that he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm proximately causing deathand used a firearm. (§§ 12022.53, subd. (d), 12022.5, subd. (a).)The trial court sentenced him to 25 years to life for the murder plus a consecutive term of 25 years to life for the section 12022.53finding. It also sentenced him to three years for the robbery and an additionalprison term for the section 12022.5finding, butit stayed both sentences.
Colvin appealed, arguing that the trial court was unaware of its discretion to impose a 10- or 20-year term rather than 25years to life under section 12022.53. We concluded the record was ambiguous and remanded for resentencing. We also noted that the abstract of judgment erroneously indicated that the court sentenced him to 10yearsrather than 3yearsfor the robbery and directed the court to correct the error. On remand, the courtclarified that it was aware of itsdiscretionand decidedto impose the higher term at the original hearing; it then imposed the same sentence. It also amended the abstract of judgment to reflect a three-yearrobbery sentence.
Colvin again appeals. His counsel filed a brief pursuant to Wende.Colvin was notified of his right to file a supplemental brief, but he has not done so. We have independently reviewed the record regarding the resentencing after remand to determine whether any arguable factual or legal issuesexist. We have found none.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.

_________________________
RODRÍGUEZ, J.

WE CONCUR:

_________________________
FUJISAKI, Acting P. J.

_________________________
PETROU, J.

A175767; People v. Colvin