People v. Keo CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D083243 · 2024-10-08 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from an order
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD200761
Trial judge: Yvonne E. Campos
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, 2026-10-13T04:03Z · confidence low

The trial court denied Keo's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, finding him ineligible because he was the sole participant and personally inflicted the injury, and the jury was not instructed on disapproved liability theories. The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial after an independent review of the record pursuant to a Delgadillo brief.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 “The court found Keo was the sole participant in the crime and personally inflicted the injury to the victim. The court found the jury was not instructed on any theory of liability that was disapproved by section 1172.6. Accordingly, the court found Keo was ineligible for relief and denied the petition without first issuing an order to show cause or holding an evidentiary hearing.”	unclear	correct	agree with court agree with court

Authorities

relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Establishes the procedure for appellate counsel to file a brief indicating no meritorious issues exist, prompting the court to independently review the record.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Delgadillo protocol for independent review when counsel identifies no issues. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' opinion because it provides no substantive legal analysis or citations to support the trial court's specific findings on personal infliction and jury instructions, relying entirely on the trial court's factual determinations without independent verification.

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 San Diego Superior Court denied Chanty Keo's Penal Code section 1172.6 resentencing petition at the prima facie stage, finding from the record of conviction that he was the sole participant who personally shot the victim and that the jury was not instructed on any theory now invalid under section 1172.6. On appeal, counsel filed a Delgadillo no-issues brief, Keo filed nothing, 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 at the prima facie stage without issuing an order to show cause or holding an evidentiary hearing, on the ground that petitioner was the sole and actual perpetrator and the jury was not instructed on any disapproved theory of liability “The court found Keo was the sole participant in the crime and personally inflicted the injury to the victim.”	unclear	correct	agree with court A defendant convicted of attempted murder as the sole perpetrator who personally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury, with no felony-murder, natural-and-probable-consequences, or other imputed-malice instruction given, is ineligible for section 1172.6 relief as a matter of law, and the record of conviction (including jury instructions) may be consulted at the prima facie stage to establish this. The opinion does not state a standard of review and does not recite the governing prima facie test, but the trial court's stated findings, as recounted, support denial without an order to show cause.

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 must notify the defendant of the right to file a supplemental brief and may, in its discretion, independently review the record; if no supplemental brief is filed it may dismiss or affirm.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The result is defensible: the trial court's findings that Keo was the sole, actual shooter and that no imputed-liability theory was presented to the jury establish ineligibility as a matter of law, and the court properly followed Delgadillo procedures before conducting its own review. The opinion is skeletal, however; it does not articulate the standard of review or the prima facie standard governing section 1172.6 petitions, and it omits the underlying facts, so its correctness must be inferred from the trial court's recited findings rather than demonstrated.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 10/8/24 P. v. Keo 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, D083243

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD200761)

CHANTY KEO,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Yvonne E. Campos, Judge. Affirmed. Rex Adam Williams, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2007, a jury convicted Chanty Keo of attempted premeditated murder (Pen. Code,1 §§ 187, subd. (a), 664) and found Keo personally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). The jury also convicted him of robbery (§ 211) and found other sentence 1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code. enhancements to be true. The court sentenced Keo to life in prison plus 27 years. Keo appealed and this court affirmed the judgment in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Keo (Aug. 25, 2008, D051784).) In 2023, Keo filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. The court appointed counsel, received briefing, reviewed the record of conviction and jury instructions, and held a hearing. The court found Keo was the sole participant in the crime and personally inflicted the injury to the victim. The court found the jury was not instructed on any theory of liability that was disapproved by section 1172.6. Accordingly, the court found Keo was ineligible for relief and denied the petition without first issuing an order to show cause or holding an evidentiary hearing. Keo 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. We notified Keo that he could file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. STATEMENT OF FACTS The facts of the offenses were discussed in our original appeal in this case. We will not repeat them here. DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Delgadillo brief and asks the court to exercise its discretion to review the record for error. Although Keo has not submitted any briefing to support his appeal, we have independently reviewed the record for error. Our review has not identified 2 any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Keo on this appeal. DISPOSITION The order denying Keo’s petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

IRION, J.

KELETY, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Delgadillo S266305 · 2022-12-19