People v. Young CA4/1

── People v. Young CA4/1 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 23, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/23/26 P. v. Young CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE, D085224 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN203478) DUANE YOUNG, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Lisa R. Rodriguez, Judge. Affirmed. Duane Young, in pro. per.; and Joshua L. Siegel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2006, Duane Young was convicted of three counts of robbery with firearm enhancements. Young admitted four prison priors and a serious felony prior conviction. Young was sentenced to a total term of 36 years in prison.  Young appealed and this court reversed his conviction and remanded the case for resentencing. (People v. Young (Mar. 7, 2007, D048545) [nonpub. opn.].) Following resentencing, Young’s term was reduced to 30 years eight months in prison. This court affirmed the judgment following resentencing. (People v Young (Feb. 6, 2008, D051316) [nonpub. opn.].) In 2022, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation notified the court that Young was eligible for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75. The trial court received briefing and held a resentencing hearing. The court resentenced Young to a total term of 27 years eight months. Young filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, indicating counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to independently review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Young the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal. Young has responded with a lengthy submission in which he argues nobody was physically injured in the underlying crimes. He only displayed a firearm but did not use it. Young argues he has been in prison long enough and that the trial court should have taken action to reduce his sentence. While he makes strong arguments from his perspective, he has not identified any arguable issue for reversal on appeal, based on this record. Notwithstanding the fact of his disagreement with the trial court’s decision, he does not raise any arguable issues regarding the court’s exercise of its broad discretionary authority. 2 Young’s supplemental brief does not demonstrate the existence of an arguable issue for reversal. DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to independently review the record for error. To assist the court, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel has identified four possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal. 1. Whether the court erred in declining to strike Young’s strike prior. 2. Whether the court erred in declining to strike Young’s serious felony prior. 3. Whether the court erred in declining to stay or strike the firearm enhancement. 4. Whether the court erred in failing to stay counts 4 and 6 under section 654. We have independently reviewed the record for error as require