People v. Dunsmore CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D083375 · 2024-10-18 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from an order
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCS215653
Trial judge: Garry G. Haehnle
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Truc T. Do, Michele M. Castillo

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:02Z · confidence low

The trial court denied Dunsmore's second petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, finding him ineligible for relief. The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Delgadillo, finding no potentially meritorious issues.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of second petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 “The order denying Dunsmore’s second petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 is affirmed.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order. The court conducted an independent review of the record as requested by appellate counsel in a Delgadillo brief. The court found that Dunsmore's supplemental brief did not raise any potentially meritorious issues regarding the denial of the petition, specifically noting he did not address the eligibility of attempted voluntary manslaughter for relief under the statute. The court concluded that competent counsel represented Dunsmore and no error was identified.

Authorities

relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Appellate counsel may file a brief indicating no meritorious issues exist and request the court to independently review the record for error.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appellate counsel must identify potentially meritorious issues and request independent review when they believe an appeal is frivolous.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it follows the established Delgadillo/Anders procedure for handling appeals where counsel finds no merit. The court explicitly states it exercised its discretion to independently review the record and found no error, which is the required standard of review in this context. The reliance on the defendant's failure to raise specific arguments in his supplemental brief is consistent with the procedural posture of a Delgadillo 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 San Diego Superior Court denied Darryl Lee Dunsmore's second petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, finding him ineligible because his 2010 convictions were for attempted voluntary manslaughter and assault with a deadly weapon. On appeal, counsel filed a Delgadillo brief, Dunsmore filed a supplemental brief that did not address eligibility, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguably meritorious issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of second section 1172.6 resentencing petition on the ground that Dunsmore was ineligible for relief “Dunsmore filed his second petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 The trial court again found him ineligible for relief under section 1172.6.”	unclear	correct	agree with court Section 1172.6 extends relief only to persons convicted of murder, attempted murder, or manslaughter under felony-murder, natural-and-probable-consequences, or other imputed-malice theories; Dunsmore was convicted of attempted voluntary manslaughter and assault, and the opinion notes he did not even address eligibility in his supplemental brief. The court did not articulate a standard of review or explain the statutory analysis, but on the face of the opinion the result is defensible and a prior appeal had already affirmed denial of an identical petition.
Dunsmore's supplemental-brief complaints about assistance of counsel, his conviction, and sentencing/custody credits “His supplemental brief does not raise any potentially meritorious issues in this appeal from denial of his petition under section 1172.6.”	unclear	correct	agree with court An appeal from denial of a section 1172.6 petition does not reopen the underlying judgment, so challenges to trial counsel, the conviction, and custody credits from the 2010 sentencing are outside the scope of the appeal; the court properly declined to treat them as grounds for reversal. The opinion gives little detail, but the conclusion follows from the limited nature of a section 1172.6 proceeding.

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 evaluate any supplemental brief the defendant files and may, in its discretion, independently review the record.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed appellate counsel who finds no meritorious issues may file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court followed the Delgadillo procedure, considered the supplemental brief, and reached a result consistent with the statutory scope of section 1172.6, which does not list attempted voluntary manslaughter. It skipped any explanation of why attempted voluntary manslaughter falls outside the statute and cited no authority on that point, leaving the reasoning thin though the outcome is defensible.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 10/18/24 P. v. Dunsmore 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, D083375

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCS215653)

DARRYL LEE DUNSMORE,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Garry G. Haehnle, Judge. Affirmed. Darryl Lee Dunsmore, in pro. per.; and Jared G. Coleman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2010, Darryl Lee Dunsmore was convicted of attempted voluntary manslaughter while personally inflicting great bodily injury (Pen. Code,1 §§ 192, subd. (a), 664, & 12022.7, subd. (a)), assault with a deadly weapon while inflicting great bodily injury (§§ 245, subd. (a)(1), 12022.7, subd. (a)), 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. and a second count of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)). The court found true a serious felony prior conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)), a prison prior (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), and a strike prior (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)). Dunsmore was ultimately sentenced to a determinate term of 21 years in prison. Dunsmore appealed, and this court affirmed the conviction in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Dunsmore (Dec. 21, 2011, D057645).) Dunsmore has filed at least six appeals in this case complaining about multiple issues, in addition to this appeal, addressing the denial of his petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. In 2021, Dunsmore filed a petition for resentencing under section 1170.95 (now renumbered section 1172.6). The trial court found Dunsmore was not eligible for resentencing under the statute. Dunsmore appealed, and this court affirmed in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Dunsmore (June 30, 2022, D079851).) Dunsmore filed his second petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 The trial court again found him ineligible for relief under section 1172.6. Dunsmore again filed a 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 informed Dunsmore he could file his brief on appeal. He has responded with a supplemental brief. Dunsmore complains about numerous issues, including assistance of counsel, his conviction, and various sentencing topics including custody 2 credits. He does not address the issue in this appeal of whether a person convicted of attempted voluntary manslaughter can seek relief under section 1172.6. His supplemental brief does not raise any potentially meritorious issues in this appeal from denial of his petition under section 1172.6. 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 and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel has identified three possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: 1. Whether the court should order resentencing in the interests of justice. 2. Whether a conviction for attempted manslaughter is eligible for relief under section 1172.6. 3. Whether custody credits were properly applied. We have exercised our discretion to independently review the record for error. Our review of the record has not identified any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Dunsmore in this appeal.

3 DISPOSITION The order denying Dunsmore’s second petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

DO, J.

CASTILLO, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Delgadillo S266305 · 2022-12-19