People v. Ancira CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Bernardino County · No. FWV21002440
- Trial judge
- Jon D. Ferguson
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Truc T. Do (author), Buchanan
Analysis
The trial court resentenced the defendant to 15 years to life for second-degree murder with a one-year enhancement for knife use following a reduction from first-degree murder on direct appeal. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende and Anders v. California, finding no error.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Resentencing to 15 years to life for second-degree murder with a one-year enhancement for knife use.“On remand, the court sentenced Ancira to a term of 15 years to life for the second degree murder conviction, and again imposed the one-year enhancement for his use of the knife.” | de novo | not reached | unsure The opinion is a Wende/Anders memorandum that states the court reviewed the record and found no error, but it does not articulate a specific standard of review or analyze the legality of the sentence or enhancement. The court simply affirms without addressing the specific legal question raised by counsel regarding the resentencing. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed counsel to conduct an independent review of the record for error when no claims are raised.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to file a brief identifying potential errors when they believe an appeal is frivolous.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is a standard Wende/Anders memorandum that affirms the judgment based on an independent review of the record. It fails to address the specific legal question raised by counsel regarding the resentencing, providing no analysis of the trial court's authority or the legality of the sentence.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionOn remand after the Court of Appeal reduced Ancira's first degree murder conviction to second degree murder, the trial court resentenced him to 15 years to life plus a one-year Penal Code section 12022, subdivision (b) knife-use enhancement. Appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief identifying the resentencing as a possible issue, Ancira filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable error, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Resentencing on remand to 15 years to life for second degree murder with a one-year knife-use enhancement under Penal Code section 12022, subdivision (b)“On remand, the court sentenced Ancira to a term of 15 years to life for the second degree murder conviction, and again imposed the one-year enhancement for his use of the knife.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The opinion applies independent Wende/Anders review rather than a conventional standard. A 15-years-to-life term is the statutorily mandated indeterminate sentence for second degree murder, and the one-year knife enhancement was already found by the jury and imposed in the original judgment, so reimposing it after reduction of the degree of murder is consistent with the remand. Nothing in the opinion suggests any sentencing error, and the result follows from the mandatory sentencing scheme. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel files a brief raising no issues, the Court of Appeal must independently review the entire record for arguable error.
- 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, and the court must then conduct its own examination of the record.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court followed the established Wende/Anders procedure for a no-issue brief in an appeal from a judgment after resentencing, conducted the required independent review, and reached the result the mandatory sentencing statute compels. The memorandum opinion is sparse and does not discuss whether independent review was required rather than discretionary in this posture or the authority for the sentence imposed, but the outcome is plainly defensible.
Opinion
Filed 5/5/26 P. v. Ancira 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, D086632
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. FWV21002440)
v.
ANGEL CASTREJON ANCIRA,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, Jon D. Ferguson, Judge. Affirmed. Andrea S. Bitar, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION Angel Castrejon Ancira appeals the judgment entered following his resentencing for second degree murder. His appointed counsel filed a brief raising no claims of error and inviting us to review the record independently for error. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436; Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders).) We advised Ancira he could file a supplemental brief, but he has not done so. Given the nature of this appeal, a lengthy recitation of the underlying facts is unnecessary. A jury convicted Ancira of first degree murder in 2023 and he was sentenced to a term of 25 years to life with a single year enhancement for his use of a knife pursuant to Penal Code section 12022, subdivision (b). On direct appeal, we concluded there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of premeditation and deliberation, reduced his first degree murder conviction to a second degree murder conviction, and remanded the matter for resentencing. On remand, the court sentenced Ancira to a term of 15 years to life for the second degree murder conviction, and again imposed the one-year enhancement for his use of the knife. To assist the court in its review and in compliance with Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, counsel has identified the following possible issue for evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: “Did the trial court err when it resentenced [Ancira] to 15 years to life, for a conviction of second degree murder?” We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We find no error requiring reversal or modification of the judgment and affirm. Competent counsel has represented Ancira on this appeal.
2 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.
DO, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
BUCHANAN, J.
HUFFMAN, 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.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12