People v. Halbert CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D082926 · 2024-07-26 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from an order
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD128329-02
Trial judge: Laura J. Birkmeyer
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), O'Rourke, Laurence D. Rubin

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:08Z · confidence high

The trial court denied Halbert's second petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, concluding the record demonstrated he acted with intent to kill. The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial after an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, finding no meritorious issues.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of second petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 “The court reviewed the record and concluded the record demonstrated that Halbert acted with the intent to kill.”	de novo	correct	agree with court The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision. Under the standard of review for a denial of a section 1172.6 petition where the court relies on the record, the appellate court reviews the record de novo to determine if the petitioner is eligible for resentencing. The court found the record supported the trial court's conclusion that Halbert acted with intent to kill, which is a basis for ineligibility under the statute. The appellate court's independent review under Wende confirmed this finding.

Authorities

relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Establishes the procedure for appointed appellate counsel to file a brief indicating no meritorious issues and requesting independent review of the record.
relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires the appellate court to independently review the record for error when appointed counsel files a Wende brief.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the Wende/Delgadillo framework for reviewing a pro per appeal where counsel finds no issues. The court explicitly states it exercised its discretion to independently review the record and found no error, which is the required standard of review for this type of appeal.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:29Z · confidence low

The trial court denied Derrick Halbert's second Penal Code section 1172.6 resentencing petition at the prima facie stage, without issuing an order to show cause, after declining to apply collateral estoppel and concluding the record showed he acted with intent to kill. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Delgadillo brief, Halbert filed a supplemental brief relying mainly on his codefendant's later parole-hearing admissions, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issue, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of second section 1172.6 petition at the prima facie stage without an order to show cause or evidentiary hearing, on the ground that the record of conviction shows Halbert acted with intent to kill “The court reviewed the record and concluded the record demonstrated that Halbert acted with the intent to kill.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The opinion states no standard of review and does not explain why the record conclusively refutes the petition; it simply reports that independent Delgadillo/Wende review disclosed no arguable issue. The result is nonetheless defensible: the jury convicted Halbert of conspiracy to commit murder, which requires a specific intent to kill (express malice) under People v. Swain, so the record of conviction establishes ineligibility as a matter of law without impermissible factfinding under People v. Lewis, and the same intent-to-kill determination was already affirmed on the first petition. Halbert's reliance on the codefendant's later parole-hearing admissions is outside the record of conviction and does not bear on whether he could still be convicted under current law as a direct aider and abettor who shared the intent to kill.
Trial court's refusal to dismiss the second petition on collateral estoppel grounds (reviewed only implicitly, as part of the affirmance) “The trial court declined to dismiss the petition on the grounds of collateral estoppel.”	unclear	not reached	agree with court The appellate court did not discuss this ruling; it affirmed on the merits of the prima facie denial. Because the ruling favored Halbert and the petition was denied on an independent ground, nothing turns on it.

Authorities

relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — In an appeal from denial of a section 1172.6 petition where appointed counsel finds no arguable issues, the Court of Appeal is not required to conduct Wende review but may do so in its discretion and must evaluate any supplemental brief the defendant files.
relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Procedure for independent appellate review of the record when appointed counsel finds no arguable issues on appeal.
missed: People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952 — At the prima facie stage of a section 1172.6 petition the court takes the petitioner's allegations as true and may deny without an order to show cause only where the record of conviction conclusively refutes them as a matter of law, without engaging in factfinding or weighing evidence.
missed: People v. Swain (1996) 12 Cal.4th 593 — Conspiracy to commit murder requires a specific intent to kill (express malice), which would support the conclusion that Halbert's conspiracy conviction establishes intent to kill as a matter of law.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The affirmance is defensible because the conspiracy-to-commit-murder conviction necessarily reflects a jury finding of intent to kill, so the record of conviction refutes the petition as a matter of law, and the same question was resolved against Halbert on his first petition. But the opinion states no standard of review, does not cite Lewis or explain why the trial court's reliance on the record did not amount to prohibited prima facie-stage factfinding, and does not articulate why the conspiracy verdict is dispositive, leaving the reasoning largely conclusory.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 7/25/24 P. v. Halbert 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, D082926

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD128329-02)

DERRICK EDWARD HALBERT,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Laura J. Birkmeyer, Judge. Affirmed. Derrick Halbert, in pro. per.; and Laura Arnold, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. A jury convicted Derrick Halbert and a codefendant of premeditated first degree murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187, subd. (a)) and conspiracy to commit murder (§ 182, subd. (a)(1)). The jury found Halbert used a firearm (§ 12022, 1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code. subd. (a)(1)). Halbert was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 56 years to life. Halbert appealed and this court affirmed his conviction in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Halbert (Nov. 9, 1999, D031427). In 2019, Halbert filed a petition for resentencing under section 1170.95 (now renumbered section 1172.6) claiming he had been convicted of murder under a theory of natural and probable consequences and felony murder or as a non-participating aider and abettor. The trial court found Halbert acted with intent to kill and was not eligible for resentencing. Halbert appealed and this court affirmed the trial court’s decision in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Halbert (Aug. 20, 2020, D077056).) In 2023, Halbert filed a second petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. The court appointed counsel, received briefing, and thereafter denied the petition by written order without issuing an order to show cause or holding an evidentiary hearing. The trial court declined to dismiss the petition on the grounds of collateral estoppel. The court reviewed the record and concluded the record demonstrated that Halbert acted with the intent to kill. Halbert filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo) indicating counsel has not been able to identify any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to exercise its discretion to independently review the record for error under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We advised Halbert he could file his own brief on appeal.

2 Halbert has responded by filing a supplemental brief. In his brief, he argues the record shows he did not participate in the killing. Other than a few references to jury instructions, Halbert relies on materials from the parole hearing for the codefendant. The codefendant admitted the killing in his appearance before the parole board years after the trial in this case. Halbert’s submission does not raise any potentially meritorious issues regarding the matter before us relating to the denial of his second postjudgment resentencing petition. 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. Having reviewed the record and Halbert’s supplemental material, we find there is nothing in this record on which to base a potentially meritorious issue for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Halbert on this appeal. DISPOSITION The order denying Halbert’s second petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

O’ROURKE, J.

RUBIN, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Delgadillo S266305 · 2022-12-19
People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12