People v. Siulua CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D083325 · 2024-08-16 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCN233674
Trial judge: William Y. Wood
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Joan K. Irion, Julia C. Kelety

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:07Z · confidence low

The trial court denied Siulua's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 after an evidentiary hearing, finding he was proven guilty of first-degree murder and attempted murder beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Delgadillo and finding no potentially meritorious issues for reversal.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 “At the conclusion of the hearing, the court found Siulua was proven guilty of first degree murder and attempted murder beyond a reasonable doubt. The petition for resentencing was denied.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The appellate court did not review the trial court's ruling on the merits because the appellant's supplemental brief did not raise any issues relating to the trial court's decision, and the appointed counsel filed a Delgadillo brief identifying no meritorious issues.

Authorities

relied: People v. Delgadillo (2002) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Establishes the procedure for appointed appellate counsel to file a brief indicating no meritorious issues exist, requesting the court to independently review the record.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to file a brief identifying any potentially meritorious issues and to request the court to independently review the record when no such issues are found.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the Delgadillo/Anders framework for independent review when counsel identifies no issues. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' opinion because it fails to address the appellant's specific claim of ineffective assistance of counsel regarding the filing of the Delgadillo brief, instead simply stating 'Competent counsel has represented Siulua on this appeal' without analysis.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition unusual disposition

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

The trial court, after issuing an order to show cause and holding a Penal Code section 1172.6 evidentiary hearing based solely on the original trial transcripts, found Siulua guilty of first degree murder and attempted murder beyond a reasonable doubt and denied his resentencing petition. On appeal, counsel filed a Delgadillo brief, Siulua's supplemental brief raised only a complaint about his appellate counsel, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issue, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of section 1172.6 resentencing petition after evidentiary hearing, based on finding beyond a reasonable doubt that Siulua was guilty of murder as an aider and abettor and attempted murder as the direct perpetrator “At the conclusion of the hearing, the court found Siulua was proven guilty of first degree murder and attempted murder beyond a reasonable doubt. The petition for resentencing was denied.”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion does not state a standard of review and recites no facts, instead incorporating by reference the facts from the 2012 prior appeal. Counsel flagged sufficiency of the evidence as the only potential issue, and the court states only that its independent review found nothing arguable. Without any recitation of the evidence or the trial court's reasoning, there is no basis in this opinion to verify or dispute the sufficiency conclusion, though nothing suggests legal error.

Authorities

relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — In an appeal from denial of a section 1172.6 petition, when counsel finds no arguable issues the court must notify the defendant of the right to file a supplemental brief, must address any issues raised in that brief, and may in its discretion independently review the record; the opinion misdates the case as 2002, a typographical error.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed appellate counsel who finds no meritorious issues should file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal to assist the court's review.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court followed the Delgadillo procedure correctly: it gave notice, considered the supplemental brief, briefly addressed the ineffective-assistance complaint by finding counsel competent, and exercised its discretion to independently review the record. However, it provided no statement of facts, no standard of review, and no analysis of the sufficiency issue counsel identified, so the result is defensible but cannot be evaluated from the opinion itself.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 8/16/24 P. v. Siulua 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, D083325

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN233674)

PENI J. SIULUA, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, William Y. Wood, Judge. Affirmed. Peni Siulua, in pro. per.; and John P. Dwyer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2009, a jury convicted Peni Siulua and a codefendant of one count of first degree murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187, subd. (a)) and one count of attempted murder (§§ 664/187, subd. (a)). The jury found true gang enhancements 1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code. (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)) and also found a firearm enhancement under section 12022.53, subdivisions (d) and (e)(1). Siulua was sentenced to a total term of 75 years to life plus seven years in prison. Siulua appealed and this court affirmed the judgment in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Toluoa (Oct. 2, 2012, D058242).) In 2022, Siulua filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. The court appointed counsel, received briefing, and eventually issued an order to show cause and conducted an evidentiary hearing. At the evidentiary hearing, the parties relied on the transcripts from the original trial. No additional evidence was introduced. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court found Siulua was proven guilty of first degree murder and attempted murder beyond a reasonable doubt. The petition for resentencing was denied. Siulua filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2002) 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. We notified Siulua of his opportunity to file his own brief on appeal. Siulua has filed a supplemental brief which does not address any issues relating to the trial court’s decision following the evidentiary hearing. Siulua claims his appellate counsel is ineffective for filing a Delgadillo brief, which he did not authorize. Siulua wants the court to complete a “judicial investigation” and report the results to the California State Bar. He does not raise any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal.

2 We discussed the facts of the offenses in the first appeal in this case. We will not repeat a statement of facts here. DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Delgadillo brief and asks the court to independently review the record for error. To assist the court in its review, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel has identified a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this case: Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding Siulua guilty of murder as an aider and abettor and of attempted murder as the direct perpetrator. We have independently reviewed the record for error. Our review has not identified any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Siulua on this appeal. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

IRION, J.

KELETY, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Delgadillo S266305 · 2022-12-19