Filed 3/29/23 P. v. Harrison CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, A165898 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. PETER SCOTT HARRISON, No. 5000808303) Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the trial court recalled Peter Scott Harrison’s sentence and resentenced him under former Penal Code section 1171.1 (now § 1172.75).1 Harrison appealed. His appointed counsel filed a brief raising no issues and requesting this court conduct an independent review of the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Harrison was apprised of his right to file a supplemental brief but he has not filed

We resolve this case by memorandum opinion pursuant to the California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1. Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. anything. We have independently reviewed the record for arguable issues.

Having found none, we affirm.

In 2009, Harrison pled no contest to voluntary manslaughter and, as relevant here, admitted serving five prior prison terms (§ 667.5, former subd. (b)). The trial court imposed a stipulated sentence of 17 years in state prison, which included mandatory one-year enhancements for each prison prior. It ordered Harrison to pay a restitution fine and a court security fee, and it imposed and suspended a parole revocation fine.

In July 2022 — and pursuant to the parties’ stipulation — the trial court recalled the sentence and resentenced Harrison pursuant to section 1172.75. It struck the five one-year enhancements imposed under section 667.5, former subdivision (b) and reduced his sentence to 12 years. The court, however, rejected defense counsel’s request to dismiss the “fines and fees still attached to the case.” Harrison appealed.

We have examined the record and conclude there are no arguable issues. (People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 233; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

_________________________ Rodríguez, J.

WE CONCUR:

_________________________ Tucher, P. J.

_________________________ Fujisaki, J.

A165898