People v. Conroy CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD131527
- Trial judge
- David J. Danielsen (retired judge)
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Julia C. Kelety (author), William S. Dato, Buchanan
Analysis
The trial court denied Conroy's request for resentencing under Senate Bill 483, determining that his prison priors had been stricken rather than stayed in a prior appellate modification. The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende and finding no meritorious issues.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of resentencing under Penal Code sections 1172.7 and 1172.75“The order denying resentencing under sections 1172.7 and 1172.75 is affirmed.” | de novo | correct | agree with court The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of resentencing. The court conducted an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende and found no potentially meritorious issues for reversal. The trial court correctly determined that Conroy had no prison priors as part of the judgment because a prior appellate opinion had ordered them stricken rather than stayed, rendering him ineligible for resentencing under Senate Bill 483. |
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 independent review by the court.
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires the appellate court to conduct an independent review of the record for error when appointed counsel identifies no meritorious issues.
- 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's independent review.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the Wende/Anders framework for reviewing an appeal where appointed counsel finds no merit. The court independently reviewed the record and correctly identified that the prior appellate modification stricken the prison priors, making the trial court's denial of SB 483 resentencing legally correct.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court denied Michael Conroy resentencing under Penal Code sections 1172.7 and 1172.75 after finding that his two section 667.5(b) prison priors were not part of the judgment because this court's 1999 opinion had ordered them stricken, and it ordered a corrected nunc pro tunc abstract sent to CDCR. On appeal, counsel filed a Delgadillo/Wende brief, Conroy filed a letter complaining about the fairness of his underlying sentence, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguably meritorious issue, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of recall and resentencing under Penal Code sections 1172.7 and 1172.75 on the ground that no prison prior enhancement was part of Conroy's judgment“The court then appointed counsel, reviewed the record, held a hearing and denied resentencing after determining that Conroy “has no prison priors as a part of the judgment on this case.”” | unclear | correct | agree with court Section 1172.75 applies only to a person serving a term for a judgment that includes a now-invalid section 667.5(b) enhancement. The 1999 appellate opinion ordered the two prison priors stricken, not merely stayed, so they were not part of the judgment and could not have lengthened the 85-years-to-life term; CDCR's identification appears to have rested on an abstract that still reflected stayed priors, which the trial court corrected nunc pro tunc. The trial court also followed the statutory procedure by appointing counsel and holding a hearing before ruling. Conroy's letter raised only generalized complaints about the original sentence, which are not cognizable in an appeal from a section 1172.75 denial. The result is correct on the stated record, though the opinion does not analyze the statute's text or the case law on stayed versus stricken priors. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — In an appeal from a postconviction order where appointed counsel finds no arguable issues, Wende procedures are not constitutionally required, but the court must notify the defendant of the right to file a supplemental brief and may in its discretion conduct an independent review of the record.
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel files a brief raising no specific issues, the Court of Appeal must independently review the entire record to determine whether any arguable issues exist.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous may so advise the court and request to withdraw, but must 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 framework by notifying Conroy, considering his supplemental letter, and independently reviewing the record, and its affirmance is defensible because stricken prison priors are not enhancements included in the judgment under section 1172.75. The opinion, however, offers no analysis of the statutory text or the published appellate decisions addressing which prison priors qualify for relief, leaving the reader to infer the basis for the conclusion.
Opinion
Filed 5/9/25 P. v. Conroy 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, D083885
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD131527)
MICHAEL ROBERT CONROY,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, David J. Danielsen, Judge. (Retired Judge of the San Diego Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed. Michael Robert Conroy, in pro. per.; Matthew A. Lopas, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In 1998, Michael Robert Conroy pled guilty to three counts of residential burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460).1 He also admitted two prison 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. priors (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), two prior serious felony convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)), and five prior strike convictions (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)). The court sentenced Conroy to an indeterminate term of 85 years to life, consisting of three consecutive 25-year-to-life terms plus 10 years for the two prior serious felony convictions. It stayed the two prison priors under section 654. In 1999, we issued an opinion from Conroy’s direct appeal affirming but modifying the sentence. We stated, “The court should not have stayed the prison priors under section 654. Rather, the court should strike such priors. We will order the abstract of judgment amended to reflect the prison priors are stricken.” (People v. Conroy (July 30, 1999, D032303) [nonpub. opn.], p. 2, fn. 2.) In 2023, after the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) identified Conroy as a person who might be eligible to have his prison priors dismissed under Senate Bill No. 483, the trial court issued a tentative order denying resentencing because his sentence was “not enhanced by an eligible prison prior.” The court then appointed counsel, reviewed the record, held a hearing and denied resentencing after determining that Conroy “has no prison priors as a part of the judgment on this case.” It ordered “that an amended nunc pro tunc abstract be forwarded to CDCR in compliance” with our prior opinion. Conroy 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 and conduct an independent review of the record for error consistent with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We notified Conroy of his right to file his own brief on appeal. He has responded with a letter containing various complaints about the fairness 2 of his underlying sentence. He does not raise any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal.2 DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Delgadillo and asks the court to conduct a Wende review of the record for error. To assist the court in its review, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified one possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: 1. Did the trial court err in denying CDCR’s request for recall and resentencing after verifying the sentencing enhancement status and did the denial affect appellant’s substantial rights? We have independently reviewed the record consistent with the requirements of Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Conroy on this appeal. DISPOSITION The order denying resentencing under sections 1172.7 and 1172.75 is affirmed.
KELETY, J.
WE CONCUR:
DATO, Acting P. J.
BUCHANAN, J.
2 The underlying facts of the residential burglaries are discussed in our unpublished opinion. (People v. Conroy (July 30, 1999, D032303) [nonpub. opn.].) 3
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Delgadillo S266305 · 2022-12-19
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12