People v. Steeg CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from an order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. CR56218
- Trial judge
- Michael S. Groch
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), O'Rourke, Joan K. Irion
Analysis
The trial court denied Steeg's second petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 as a successive filing after his first petition was already affirmed on appeal. The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial, finding no potentially meritorious issues upon independent review of the record.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of second petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 as a successive filing“The court denied the petition as a successive filing.” | de novo | correct | agree with court The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial, noting that Steeg did not attempt to justify filing a second petition to challenge an order which has already been upheld on appeal. The court exercised its discretion to independently review the record under People v. Delgadillo but found no potentially meritorious issues for reversal, effectively upholding the trial court's procedural bar against successive petitions for the same conviction and facts. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Establishes the procedure for appointed appellate counsel to file a brief identifying no meritorious issues and requesting the court to independently review the record for error.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the Delgadillo framework for independent review and upholds the denial of a successive petition that challenges an already-affirmed order. However, it is brief and relies heavily on the prior unpublished appeal without detailed legal analysis of the successive petition doctrine itself.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court denied Norman Steeg's second Penal Code section 1172.6 petition for resentencing of his 1983 first degree murder conviction as a successive filing, his first petition having been denied after an evidentiary hearing and that denial affirmed on appeal. On appeal, counsel filed a Delgadillo brief, the Court of Appeal exercised its discretion to independently review the record, found no arguably meritorious issue, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of second section 1172.6 resentencing petition as a successive filing raising the same conviction and same facts already adjudicated and affirmed on appeal“The court denied the petition as a successive filing. Steeg again appeals the denial of the petition for resentencing of his murder conviction.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The first petition was resolved after an order to show cause and evidentiary hearing with a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt finding of active participation with reckless indifference, and that order was affirmed on appeal. A second petition on the identical conviction and facts, with no claimed change in law, is barred by collateral estoppel and law of the case principles; Steeg's supplemental brief merely reargues witness credibility and his role in the robbery, which was already litigated. The court did not state a standard of review or cite authority on successive petitions, but the result is plainly defensible. |
Appellate court's exercise of discretion under Delgadillo to independently review the record despite the successive nature of the appeal“We have exercised our discretion to independently review the record for error, even though this is the second challenge to the same ruling.” | de novo | correct | agree with court Delgadillo holds that Wende review is not constitutionally required in appeals from denial of section 1172.6 relief but that the appellate court may in its discretion conduct independent review; the court did so and also considered the defendant's supplemental brief as Delgadillo requires. This complies with the governing procedure. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — In an appeal from denial of a section 1172.6 petition where counsel finds no arguable issues, the court must evaluate any issues raised in the defendant's supplemental brief and may, but need not, independently review the entire record.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The result is correct because a second petition on the same conviction and identical facts, after a full evidentiary hearing and an affirmance on appeal, is properly denied as successive and the defendant's supplemental brief only reargues already-adjudicated facts. The opinion, however, cites no authority on successive section 1172.6 petitions and does not explain why the successive-filing bar applies, leaving the reasoning thin even if the disposition is sound.
Opinion
Filed 7/22/24 P. v. Steeg 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, D083184
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. CR56218)
NORMAN LEE STEEG,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Michael S. Groch, Judge. Affirmed. Norman Steeg, in pro. per.; and John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. This appeal is from the second petition for resentencing filed by Norman Steeg to seek resentencing of his 1983 conviction for first degree murder under Penal Code section 1172.6.1 In Steeg’s first petition, the trial court issued an order to show cause and held an evidentiary hearing. At the 1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code. conclusion of the hearing, the court found the prosecution had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Steeg was an active participant in the murder and that he acted with reckless disregard for human life. Steeg appealed and this court affirmed the order denying his petition for resentencing in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Steeg (Aug. 31, 2022, D079833).) Steeg filed a second petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 for the same conviction based on the same set of facts. He does not attempt to justify filing a second petition to challenge an order which has already been upheld on appeal. We will briefly summarize the procedural posture of the case. In 1983, a jury convicted Steeg of first degree murder. In December 2021, the trial court denied Steeg’s petition for resentencing. Steeg appealed and this court affirmed the denial of his petition. In August 2023, Steeg filed his second petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. The trial court appointed counsel and held a hearing. The court denied the petition as a successive filing. Steeg again appeals the denial of the petition for resentencing of his murder conviction. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). Counsel has not been able to identify any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to exercise its discretion under Delgadillo to independently review the record for error. We advised Steeg he could file his own brief on appeal. Steeg has responded with a lengthy supplemental brief. In his brief, Steeg argues the credibility of witnesses at trial and minimizes his own role in the robbery that turned deadly. He complains about the trial court’s errors at trial and argues he was merely a bystander in the homicide.
2 On his prior appeal Steeg disputed the trial court’s findings on the same facts. DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Delgadillo brief and asks the court to independently review the record for error. We have exercised our discretion to independently review the record for error, even though this is the second challenge to the same ruling. Our independent review of the record has not disclosed any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Steeg on this appeal. DISPOSITION The order denying Steeg’s second petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
O’ROURKE, J.
IRION, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Delgadillo S266305 · 2022-12-19