People v. Nelson CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCN409177
- Trial judge
- Michael D. Washington
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- William S. Dato (author), Truc T. Do
Analysis
The trial court denied Nelson's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, finding he was the actual perpetrator of the offenses. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record pursuant to a Wende brief.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6“The court found the evidence showed Nelson was the actual perpetrator of the offenses and was not eligible for relief under section 1172.6.” | substantial evidence | not reached | unsure The appellate court stated it reviewed the record for error but did not explicitly analyze the substantial evidence standard or the trial court's factual findings in the text provided; it simply affirmed. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires independent review of the record when appointed appellate counsel files a brief stating no arguable issues exist.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires counsel to identify possible issues and the court to independently review the record in cases where counsel finds no arguable issues.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound in following Wende and Anders requirements for independent review. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' opinion because it fails to explicitly state the standard of review applied to the trial court's factual findings or provide any substantive reasoning for affirming the denial of the section 1172.6 petition, merely stating no arguable issues were found.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court, after issuing an order to show cause and holding an evidentiary hearing on Nelson's Penal Code section 1172.6 resentencing petition, found he was the actual perpetrator of the attempted murder and denied the petition. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief, Nelson filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of section 1172.6 resentencing petition after evidentiary hearing on the ground that Nelson was the actual perpetrator and therefore ineligible for relief“The court found the evidence showed Nelson was the actual perpetrator of the offenses and was not eligible for relief under section 1172.6. The court denied the petition.” | substantial evidence | correct | agree with court Nelson pleaded guilty to attempted murder and personally admitted a section 12022, subdivision (b)(1) personal-use-of-a-knife enhancement and a section 12022.7 personal-infliction-of-great-bodily-injury enhancement; those personal-conduct admissions, together with the trial court's post-hearing finding that he was the actual perpetrator, support ineligibility because section 1172.6 relief is unavailable to an actual killer/perpetrator who acted with intent to kill. The opinion does not describe the hearing evidence, so the conclusion rests on counsel's Wende/Anders representation and the court's independent review rather than any stated analysis. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel finds no arguable issues, the Court of Appeal conducts an independent review of the record for error in a first appeal of right.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds no meritorious issues should identify 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 do not apply as a matter of right to appeals from the denial of a section 1172.6 petition; the court must notify the defendant that the appeal may be dismissed as abandoned if no supplemental brief is filed, though the court retains discretion to conduct an independent review.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court reached a defensible result by independently reviewing the record and finding no arguable issue, which Delgadillo permits as a discretionary matter, and the plea admissions of personal knife use and personal infliction of great bodily injury strongly support the actual-perpetrator finding. However, the opinion treats Wende review as mandated without acknowledging Delgadillo's holding that Wende does not apply to section 1172.6 appeals, and it recites none of the evidentiary-hearing record it reviewed.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
record incompleteOpinion
Filed 3/2/26 P. v. Nelson 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, D085826
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN409177)
CHARLES L. NELSON, Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Michael D. Washington, Judge. Affirmed. Benjamin Kington, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In September 2021, Charles L. Nelson pleaded guilty to attempted murder with a knife and admitted he inflicted great bodily injury (Pen.
Code,1 §§ 664/187, subd. (a), 12022, subd. (b)(1), & 12022.7, subd. (e)).
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. In July 2024, Nelson filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. The trial court found Nelson had made a prima facie showing eligibility for relief under the statute and issued an order to show cause. The court conducted an evidentiary hearing. The court found the evidence showed Nelson was the actual perpetrator of the offenses and was not eligible for relief under section 1172.6. The court denied the petition. Nelson 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. Counsel asks the court to independently review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Nelson the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. 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 a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Whether the trial court’s denial of the petition was supported by substantial evidence. We have 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 Nelson on this appeal.
2 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.* WE CONCUR:
DATO, Acting P. J.
DO, 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