People v. Partee CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D084714 · 2026-01-30 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD183228
Trial judge: Robert F. O'Neill
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: William S. Dato (author), Julia C. Kelety

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T03:31Z · confidence low

The trial court denied Partee's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 after finding he was the actual shooter. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, finding no arguable issues for reversal after independent review of the record.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 “At the completion of the hearing, the court found Partee was the actual shooter in this case and denied relief under section 1172.6.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The appellate court did not explicitly state a standard of review for the trial court's factual finding or legal application. It stated it independently reviewed the record pursuant to Wende and Anders and found no arguable issues for reversal, effectively affirming the trial court's decision without detailed analysis of the specific legal standards applied by the trial court.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires independent review of the record by the appellate court when appointed counsel files a brief stating no arguable issues exist.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to file a brief identifying potential issues and the court to independently review the record to ensure no arguable issues are overlooked.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound in its adherence to Wende and Anders requirements for independent review. However, it is substantively thin, as it fails to articulate the specific legal standards or factual basis for affirming the trial court's denial of the section 1172.6 petition, relying solely on the conclusion that no arguable issues were found.

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 trial court, after issuing an order to show cause and holding an evidentiary hearing on Partee's Penal Code section 1172.6 resentencing petition, found that Partee was the actual shooter and denied relief. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief, Partee filed a supplemental brief attacking only his 2005 trial, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Finding after the section 1172.6 evidentiary hearing that Partee was the actual shooter, and denial of resentencing relief on that basis “At the completion of the hearing, the court found Partee was the actual shooter in this case and denied relief under section 1172.6.”	substantial evidence	correct	unsure Counsel flagged substantial evidence as a possible issue and the court states it independently reviewed the record and found no arguable issue. However, the opinion recites no facts from the evidentiary hearing and gives no analysis, so the reader cannot verify the sufficiency of the evidence from the opinion itself. The result is plausible given the underlying convictions for attempted murder of a peace officer and shooting into an occupied vehicle, but the opinion does not show its work.
Application of the burden of proof at the section 1172.6 evidentiary hearing “2. Whether the trial court applied the correct burden of proof.”	de novo	correct	unsure Section 1172.6, subdivision (d)(3) requires the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the petitioner is guilty under current law. The court lists this as a potential Anders issue and concludes no arguable issue exists, but does not state what burden the trial court actually articulated or cite the statutory burden, so the conclusion cannot be independently checked from the opinion.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel finds no arguable issues, the Court of Appeal independently reviews the entire record for error in a first appeal of right.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal frivolous should file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal to assist the court's review.
missed: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Wende independent-review procedures are not constitutionally required in appeals from the denial of section 1172.6 petitions; when the defendant files a supplemental brief the court must evaluate the specific arguments raised and issue a written opinion, and may, but is not required to, independently review the record.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court reached a defensible result: it addressed Partee's supplemental brief, correctly noted that his attacks on the original 2005 trial are outside the scope of a section 1172.6 appeal, and independently reviewed the record for the two Anders issues counsel identified. But the opinion describes independent review as 'mandated' and 'required' by Wende without acknowledging People v. Delgadillo, which holds that Wende review is not required in section 1172.6 appeals, and it recites no facts or analysis supporting its substantial-evidence and burden-of-proof conclusions.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

inconsistent with cited authority record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 1/30/26 P. v. Partee 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, D084714

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD183228)

JASON DEE PARTEE,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Robert F. O’Neill, Judge. Affirmed. Jason Partee, in pro. per.; and Matthew A. Lopas, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2005, a jury convicted Jason Dee Partee of attempted murder of a peace officer (Pen. Code,1 §§ 664 & 187, subd. (a)); assault on a peace officer (§ 245, subd. (d)(1)); shooting into an occupied vehicle (§ 246); and robbery 1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code. (§ 211) among other allegations. This court affirmed the convictions in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Partee (Mar. 7, 2008, D049649).) In 2022, Partee filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. The court appointed counsel, received briefing, and held a hearing. The court determined Partee had made a prima facie case for relief under the statute. The court issued an order to show cause and held an evidentiary hearing. At the completion of the hearing, the court found Partee was the actual shooter in this case and denied relief under section 1172.6. Partee filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 indicating counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Appellate counsel asks the court to independently review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Partee the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal. Partee has responded by filing his own brief. In his brief, Partee complains about appellate counsel’s failure to raise issues on his appeal. Partee focuses on the original trial. He disputes evidence at trial, claims some evidence was false, and alleges his attorneys have been incompetent. He does not, however, address issues challenging the trial court’s decision in this resentencing proceeding. We resolved the validity of the convictions years ago in our original appeal. Partee’s supplemental brief does not identify any arguable issues for reversal of the judgment before us. The facts of the underlying offenses in this case are adequately addressed in our original opinion on appeal. We will not repeat them here.

2 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, counsel has identified two possible issues which were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal. 1. Whether there is substantial evidence to support the trial court’s finding that Partee was the actual shooter in this case. 2. Whether the trial court applied the correct burden of proof. We have independently reviewed the record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Partee on this appeal. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.* WE CONCUR:

DATO, 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