NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

OPINION

MILLER, J.

This opinion constitutes this court's third time addressing this matter. (People v. Romero (May 28, 2009, E044214) [nonpub. opn.]; People v. Romero (Oct. 12. 2010, E049654) [nonpub opn.].)

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A. JURY'S FINDINGS AND DEFENDANT'S ADMISSIONS

A jury found defendant guilty of (1) being a felon in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, § 12021, subd. (a)(1); count 1);1 (2) falsely imprisoning a person for the purpose of protection from arrest or for the purpose of using the person as a shield (§ 210.5; count 2); and (3) false imprisonment by violence (§ 236; count 3).

As to all three counts, the jury found true the allegations that defendant (1) carried a firearm during the commission of a street gang crime (§ 12021.5, subd. (a)), and (2) carried a firearm with a detachable magazine or belt-feeding device during the commission of a street gang crime (§ 12021.5, subd. (b)). In regard to count 1, the jury found true the allegation that defendant committed the felony for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang, with the specific intent to promote, further, or assist the gang. (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A).) As to counts 2 and 3, the jury found true the allegation that defendant personally used a firearm during the commission of the felonies. (§ 12022.5, subd. (a).)

Defendant admitted suffering a prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)), three prior convictions for which he served prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), and a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)).

B. FIRST APPEAL

In defendant's first appeal, we concluded the trial court made a variety of sentencing errors. In that first disposition, we corrected some of the sentencing errors by modification, but also directed the trial court to exercise its discretion in correcting other errors.

C. FIRST RESENTENCING HEARING

Defendant was not present at the first resentencing hearing. At the hearing, the trial court failed to orally pronounce judgment for defendant's third prison prior, as directed by this court. The trial court also made errors related to the abstract of judgment.

D. SECOND APPEAL

In defendant's second appeal, we found the failure to secure defendant's presence at the resentencing hearing to be harmless. However, in our disposition, we directed the trial court to correct the sentencing errors from the resentencing hearing. Our disposition read, "The trial court is directed to amend the abstract of judgment to reflect that defendant's sentence for count 1 is 16 months for the substantive offense (§ 12021, subd. (a)(1)), and one year for the gang enhancement (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A)). [¶] In regard to the third prison prior (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), the trial court is directed to either strike the prior or impose a sentence."

E. SECOND RESENTENCING HEARING

Defendant was present at the second resentencing hearing. The trial court amended the abstract of judgment to reflect that defendant's sentence for count 1 is 16 months for the substantive offense (§ 12021, subd. (a)(1)), and one year for the gang enhancement (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A)). The trial court struck the third prison prior. (§ 667.5, subd. (b).) The trial court sentenced defendant to prison for a total term of 27 years, 4 months. The abstract of judgment was amended to reflect the trial court's changes to defendant's sentence.

At the resentencing hearing, defendant requested a different attorney, because he wanted an attorney to argue for "a lesser base term." The trial court denied the motion, because it "didn't feel that . . . was open for discussion."

DISCUSSION

On February 14, 2011, defendant filed a notice of appeal. We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. After examining the record, counsel filed a brief raising no arguable issues and requesting that this court conduct an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at page 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738. Nevertheless, defendant's counsel directed this court's attention to the possibility of three different arguments: (1) the trial court erred by not holding a Marsden2 hearing when defendant requested different counsel; (2) defendant is entitled to a remand for a Marsden hearing without needing to demonstrate prejudice; and (3) defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel. On June 10, 2011, we offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he failed to do. We have independently examined the entire record and have determined that no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 113-119; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

HOLLENHORST, Acting P. J. and McKINSTER, J., concurs.