People v. Turner CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from an order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD275956
- Trial judge
- Runston G. Maino
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Laurence D. Rubin (author), Truc T. Do, Michele M. Castillo
Analysis
The trial court denied Turner's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, finding he failed to make a prima facie showing of eligibility because his conviction was based on direct evidence of being the sole and actual killer. The Court of Appeal affirmed the order, determining that Turner's supplemental brief raised only challenges to his underlying conviction rather than the specific postjudgment order denying his petition.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of Penal Code section 1172.6 petition for resentencing“The court found that he had not made a prima facie showing for relief.” | de novo | correct | agree with court The appellate court affirmed the denial, noting that Turner's arguments targeted the underlying conviction rather than the specific legal basis for the petition's denial (i.e., that he was the sole and actual killer and thus ineligible). |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Requires appellate counsel to evaluate specific arguments in a supplemental brief when no issues are found in the initial brief.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly identifies that the appellant failed to challenge the specific order on appeal, instead raising unrelated issues regarding the underlying conviction. The court properly exercised its discretion to review the record and found no arguable issues regarding the section 1172.6 denial.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe San Diego Superior Court summarily denied Jeffrey Alan Turner's Penal Code section 1172.6 resentencing petition at the prima facie stage, after the prosecution argued he was ineligible as a matter of law because his April 2019 first degree murder trial post-dated the January 2019 amendments to sections 188 and 189, the jury was not instructed on felony murder or natural and probable consequences, and the jury found he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing death. On appeal, counsel filed a Delgadillo no-issues brief, Turner filed a supplemental brief attacking only his underlying conviction, and the Court of Appeal found no arguable issues and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Summary denial of Turner's section 1172.6 petition for failure to make a prima facie showing of eligibility for resentencing“On November 22, 2024, the trial court heard arguments of counsel and then summarily denied Turner’s petition for section 1172.6 relief. The court found that he had not made a prima facie showing for relief.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The opinion does not state a standard of review and does not independently explain why the prima facie denial was correct; it relies on the Delgadillo framework and notes that Turner's supplemental arguments attack only the underlying conviction, which is not cognizable on appeal from a postjudgment section 1172.6 order. The result is nonetheless clearly right on the facts recited: section 1172.6, subdivision (a)(3) requires that the petitioner could not presently be convicted because of the January 1, 2019 changes to sections 188 and 189, and Turner was tried in April 2019 under the amended law, with no felony murder or natural and probable consequences instructions, and the jury found he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing death, establishing him as the actual killer. The record of conviction therefore refutes eligibility as a matter of law without any impermissible factfinding. |
Turner's supplemental-brief claims (ineffective assistance, Brady/discovery violations, prosecutorial error, admission of surveillance video) challenging the underlying murder conviction“However, in solely challenging his underlying murder conviction, Turner has not identified any potentially meritorious issues regarding his challenge to the postjudgment order denying his section 1172.6 petition for resentencing.” | unclear | correct | agree with court An appeal from an order denying a section 1172.6 petition is limited to that order; the judgment of conviction was affirmed in the prior appeal (D076290) and became final, so trial-error claims such as ineffective assistance, Brady violations, prosecutorial misconduct, and evidentiary rulings are outside the scope of this appeal. The court correctly evaluated the specific arguments as Delgadillo requires and properly declined to treat them as arguable issues. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — In an appeal from the denial of a section 1172.6 petition where appointed counsel finds no arguable issues, the Court of Appeal must evaluate the specific arguments in the defendant's supplemental brief and has discretion, but no obligation, to independently review the entire record.
- missed: People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952 — At the section 1172.6 prima facie stage the trial court may consider the record of conviction, including jury instructions and verdicts, to determine whether the petitioner is ineligible for relief as a matter of law, but may not engage in factfinding or weigh evidence; the prima facie bar is intentionally low. The opinion did not cite Lewis or otherwise articulate the governing prima facie standard, though the result is consistent with it.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion correctly applies Delgadillo, properly addresses Turner's supplemental arguments as beyond the scope of an appeal from a postjudgment section 1172.6 order, and reaches a result compelled by the record (post-SB 1437 trial, no imputed-malice instructions, actual-killer firearm finding). It is thin, however, in that it never states the standard of review, never cites Lewis or the prima facie framework, and never itself articulates why the summary denial was legally correct, relying instead on the absence of arguable issues.
Opinion
Filed 1/12/26 P. v. Turner 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, D085274
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD275956)
JEFFREY ALAN TURNER,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Runston G. Maino, Judge. Affirmed.
Jeffrey Alan Turner, in pro. per. and Michael C. Sampson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent. INTRODUCTION Jeffrey Alan Turner appeals from an order denying his Penal Code1 section 1172.6 petition for resentencing. His appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo) describing the relevant procedural facts and stating he had not found any arguable issues. Turner then filed a supplemental brief. We have reviewed the issues raised in Turner’s supplemental brief and independently reviewed the record. We find no reasonably arguable appellate issues and affirm the order.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Information, Jury Verdict, and Initial Appeal In September 2018, the district attorney filed an information charging Turner with murder (§ 187, subd. (a)) and alleging, among other things, that in committing the murder he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing the victim’s death (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). On April 25, 2019, a jury convicted Turner of premeditated and deliberate first degree murder. The jury also found true the allegation that in committing the murder he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing the victim’s death. The trial court sentenced Turner to a six-year determinate prison term, to be followed by an indeterminate prison term of 75 years to life. On appeal, we affirmed the judgment of conviction, but we struck the one-year prior prison 1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
2 term enhancement imposed by the trial court under section 667.5, subdivision (b). (People v. Turner (June 9, 2021, D076290) [nonpub. opn.]).2 B. Section 1172.6 Petition for Resentencing On September 13, 2024, Turner filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. The prosecution filed a response to the petition, arguing that Turner did not make a prima facie showing for relief under section 1172.6. In particular, it argued that Turner was ineligible for section 1172.6 relief as a matter of law because his trial occurred after the January 2019 amendments to sections 188 and 189, which eliminated imputed malice theories of homicide liability, and the trial court did not instruct the jury on felony murder or the natural and probable consequences theories of liability for murder. It argued the jury’s verdict therefore showed that Turner was the sole and actual killer of the victim and, as such, he was ineligible for section 1172.6 relief. In reply, Turner argued that he made a prima facie showing for section 1172.6 relief. On November 22, 2024, the trial court heard arguments of counsel and then summarily denied Turner’s petition for section 1172.6 relief. The court found that he had not made a prima facie showing for relief. Turner timely filed a notice of appeal challenging the order denying his section 1172.6 petition.
2 On our own motion, we take judicial notice of our records in case No. D076290. 3 DISCUSSION Turner’s appellate counsel filed a brief raising no issues and requesting that we proceed pursuant to Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th 216.3 We offered Turner the opportunity to file his own brief and he has submitted a supplemental brief. In his supplemental brief, Turner challenges his underlying murder conviction on multiple grounds. In particular, he argues that: (1) he was denied effective assistance of counsel when his defense counsel failed to impeach key witnesses, retain experts, or challenge inconclusive forensic evidence; (2) the prosecutor failed to disclose exculpatory evidence, including DNA evidence that supported his defense theory; (3) the prosecutor presented the testimony of a percipient witness without disclosing her emotional instability, coerced testimony, and contradictory statements; (4) the prosecutor committed prosecutorial error before and during the trial by making misleading arguments, relying on unreliable and coerced testimony, and misstating facts during closing arguments; and (5) the court abused its discretion by admitting a surveillance video which was prejudicial and not relevant and his defense counsel should have requested a limiting instruction regarding the jury’s consideration of the video. However, in solely challenging his underlying murder conviction, Turner has not identified any potentially meritorious issues regarding his challenge to the postjudgment order denying his section 1172.6 petition for resentencing.
3 Delgadillo merely requires that we “evaluate the specific arguments presented in [appellant’s supplemental] brief.” (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232, italics added.) However, we have the discretion to conduct an independent review of the entire record. (Ibid.) Here, we exercised our discretion and reviewed the entire record for arguable issues. 4 We have reviewed the record and have not discovered any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Turner in this appeal. DISPOSITION We affirm the order.
RUBIN, J.
WE CONCUR:
DO, Acting P. J.
CASTILLO, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Delgadillo S266305 · 2022-12-19