People v. Motta CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD217434
- Trial judge
- Robert F. O'Neill
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- O'Rourke (author), Julia C. Kelety
Analysis
The trial court denied Motta's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, finding he was the sole participant and personally inflicted great bodily injury. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6“The court found Motta was the sole participant in the offenses, that he personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim and that the attempted murder conviction was not based on implied malice imputed from action as an accomplice. The court denied the petition for resentencing.” | de novo | correct | agree with court The appellate court independently reviewed the record and found no arguable issues for reversal, noting Motta was the sole participant and personally inflicted the injury, which renders him ineligible for resentencing under the statute as interpreted in the context of his specific conviction. |
Standard of review (Wende vs. Delgadillo)“We are satisfied that we must independently review the record for error and therefore decline to further examine the difference between Wende review and that provided under Delgadillo.” | de novo | correct | agree with court The court determined that because it was conducting an independent review of the record as required by Wende, the distinction between Wende and Delgadillo standards was moot and did not need to be resolved. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appellate counsel to file a brief identifying arguable issues and the court to independently review the record for error when counsel finds none.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to withdraw from an appeal where no arguable issues exist, requiring independent review by the court.
- relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Clarifies the standard of review for appeals from denials of section 1172.6 petitions, which the court considered but declined to apply in favor of Wende review.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound in its application of Wende review, correctly identifying that an independent review of the record satisfies the due process concerns raised by the Wende/Delgadillo distinction. It relies on the trial court's factual findings regarding Motta's sole participation and personal infliction of injury to support the denial of resentencing.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court, after issuing an order to show cause and holding a hearing on Edward Motta's Penal Code section 1172.6 petition, denied resentencing on his attempted murder conviction, finding he was the sole participant who personally inflicted great bodily injury and that the conviction did not rest on imputed malice. On appeal, counsel filed a Wende brief, the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record under Wende and Anders, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 following order to show cause and evidentiary hearing“The court found Motta was the sole participant in the offenses, that he personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim and that the attempted murder conviction was not based on implied malice imputed from action as an accomplice.” | unclear | correct | agree with court Section 1172.6 relief is available only where liability for murder or attempted murder was imputed under the natural and probable consequences doctrine or similar theories; a sole perpetrator who personally committed the act cannot have had malice imputed to him. The opinion recites findings that Motta acted alone and personally inflicted great bodily injury, which if supported by the record of conviction forecloses relief. The appellate court did not articulate the standard of review or describe the evidence, so I cannot verify the findings from the opinion, but nothing in it suggests error. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel files a brief identifying no arguable issues, the Court of Appeal must independently review the record for error in a first appeal of right.
- relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Wende independent review is not constitutionally required on appeal from denial of a section 1172.6 petition, but the Court of Appeal retains discretion to conduct independent review.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds no meritorious issues must file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal to protect the defendant's due process rights.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court properly exercised its discretion under Delgadillo to conduct full Wende/Anders independent review, mooting counsel's due process concern, and affirmed a denial that rests on findings (sole participant, personal infliction of injury) which categorically defeat section 1172.6 eligibility. The opinion, however, does not state the standard of review applicable to post-hearing findings or describe any of the record evidence supporting them, leaving the reader to take the trial court's findings on faith.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
record incompleteOpinion
Filed 9/11/25 P. v. Motta 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, D085103
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD217434)
EDWARD MOTTA,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Robert F. O’Neill, Judge. Affirmed. Edward Motta, in pro. per.; and William D. Farber, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In June 2010, a jury convicted Edward Motta of attempted murder (Pen. Code,1 §§ 664 & 187) and multiple other offenses. He was sentenced to a total term of 95 years to life. Motta appealed and this court affirmed the 1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code. judgment in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Motta (Dec. 27, 2013, D061951).) In April 2024, Motta filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6, seeking to vacate his attempted murder conviction. The trial court received briefing, issued an order to show cause, and held a hearing. The court reviewed the record of conviction. The court found Motta was the sole participant in the offenses, that he personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim and that the attempted murder conviction was not based on implied malice imputed from action as an accomplice. The court denied the petition for resentencing. Motta filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), indicating counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to independently review the record for error as required by Wende. Counsel urges the court to apply Wende and not limit appellate review pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). Counsel argues Delgadillo does not apply because the court issued an order to show cause and held an evidentiary hearing in ruling on the petition for resentencing. We are satisfied that we must independently review the record for error and therefore decline to further examine the difference between Wende review and that provided under Delgadillo. We offered Motta the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal. Motta has responded with a short letter brief identifying some of the statute relevant to resentencing under section 1172.6. His citations do not raise any arguable issues for reversal of Motta’s conviction for attempted murder committed without any accomplice.
2 We will not include a statement of facts for the offense. The facts were discussed in our original opinion. (People v. Motta, supra, D061951.) DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende 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 (Anders), counsel has identified the question of applicability of Delgadillo to this appeal as a matter of due process. We are independently reviewing the record for error thus no due process issue arises from our standard of review. We have independently reviewed the record for error as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Motta on this appeal. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.* WE CONCUR:
O’ROURKE, Acting P. J.
KELETY, J.
* Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. 3
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12