People v. Chavez CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D086107 · 2026-06-02 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD283258
Trial judge: Theodore M. Weathers
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Truc T. Do, Julia C. Kelety

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T03:22Z · confidence low

The trial court denied Steven Chavez's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, finding the petition did not state a case for relief. The Court of Appeal affirmed the order after an independent review of the record under the Wende/Anders procedure, finding no potentially meritorious issues for reversal.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 “whether the court erred in denying appellant’s resentencing petition after finding the petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 did not state a case for relief.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The appellate court did not explicitly state the standard of review for the trial court's denial. It noted that the trial court found the petition 'did not state a case for relief,' which typically triggers a prima facie review standard under People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952. However, the opinion does not apply this standard or analyze the trial court's reasoning against it. Instead, the court performed a general independent review of the record for error under Wende/Anders and affirmed without addressing the specific legal sufficiency of the petition's allegations regarding the change of law or eligibility. The court's reliance on the defendant's sworn admission of direct aiding and abetting with intent to kill suggests the petition failed on the merits, but the court did not formally adjudicate the standard of review or the specific legal error alleged by the defendant (duress).

Authorities

relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Establishes the procedure for reviewing appeals from denials of section 1172.6 petitions, including the option for counsel to file a brief identifying no arguable issues and requesting independent review.
relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appellate courts to independently review the record for error when counsel files a brief stating no arguable issues exist.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires counsel to file a brief identifying any potentially meritorious issues and requesting leave to withdraw, allowing the court to conduct an independent review.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound in its application of the Wende/Anders framework for reviewing a section 1172.6 denial where counsel identifies no issues. However, it is substantively thin; it fails to articulate the standard of review for the trial court's prima facie determination or explicitly connect the defendant's sworn plea admissions to the legal standard for eligibility under section 1172.6, relying instead on a general 'no error found' conclusion.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:29Z · confidence low

The San Diego Superior Court denied Steven Chavez's Penal Code section 1172.6 resentencing petition, finding it did not state a case for relief, where Chavez had pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter after SB 1437 took effect and admitted under oath that he directly aided and abetted the killing with intent to kill. On appeal, counsel filed a Delgadillo brief, Chavez filed a pro. per. submission attacking his conviction and claiming his plea admissions were made under duress, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issue, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of section 1172.6 resentencing petition for failure to state a prima facie case for relief “whether the court erred in denying appellant’s resentencing petition after finding the petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 did not state a case for relief.”	unclear	correct	agree with court Section 1172.6 relief is available only to a petitioner who could not presently be convicted of murder because of the 2019 changes to sections 188 and 189. Chavez's own sworn factual basis in the record of conviction admits direct aiding and abetting with intent to kill, a theory that remains valid, and he pleaded after the statute was in effect, so he is ineligible as a matter of law; his pro. per. duress argument is a collateral attack on the plea, not a basis for 1172.6 relief. The opinion does not, however, state the governing prima facie standard or cite Lewis, and does not describe the trial court's proceedings, so the agreement rests on the plea admissions recited rather than on the court's analysis.

Authorities

relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — In an appeal from denial of a section 1172.6 petition where counsel finds no arguable issues, the Court of Appeal is not required to conduct Wende review but may exercise discretion to independently review the record; it must notify the defendant of the right to file a supplemental brief and address any issues raised.
relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Procedure for independent appellate review of the record when appointed counsel identifies no arguable issues in a first appeal of right.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal frivolous must file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
missed: People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952 — At the prima facie stage of a section 1172.6 petition the court may consult the record of conviction to determine ineligibility as a matter of law but may not engage in factfinding or weigh evidence; the inquiry is limited and the petitioner's allegations are taken as true unless refuted by the record.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The result is defensible because Chavez's sworn plea admissions establish he was a direct aider and abettor with intent to kill, a theory unaffected by SB 1437, and his pro. per. submission attacks the conviction rather than identifying a basis for 1172.6 relief. But the opinion offers no merits analysis, does not state the prima facie standard or cite Lewis, and does not describe what the trial court did, so it affirms essentially by assertion under the Delgadillo discretion.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 6/2/26 P. v. Chavez 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, D086107

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SCD283258)

STEVEN CHAVEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Theodore M. Weathers, Judge. Affirmed. Steven Chavez, in pro. per., and Daniel J. Kessler, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent. This appeal is from an order denying appellant’s petition for resentencing under Penal Code1 section 1172.6. We review this case following the procedure outlined in People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo).

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. Steven Chavez was charged, along with two other defendants, with murder (§ 187) and conspiracy to commit murder (§ 182, subd. (a)(1). The information alleged the crimes were committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang. Chavez pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter and stipulated to a sentence of 17 years in prison, to be served concurrently with a sentence from the federal court. In his change of plea, Chavez stated, under oath, the following description of his liability: “I directly aided and abetted Jesus Faraj and Peter Burgos in causing the death of Jimmy Khieu, and the killing was carried out with a firearm. When I aided and abetted Jesus Faraj and Peter Burgos, I acted with the intent to kill without lawful excuse or justification.

“I acknowledge that I committed these acts, and I am pleading guilty to the lesser crime of Voluntary Manslaughter to take advantage of the plea agreement to avoid prosecution as a direct aider and abettor to Murder.

“I further admit that the East San Diego criminal street gang is an ongoing organized association or group of three or more persons that shares a common name and identifying sign or symbol. East San Diego criminal street gang’s primary activities include the commission of murder, attempted murder, assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury, assault with a deadly weapon, shooting at inhabited dwelling or occupied vehicles, and robbery. Members of the East San Diego criminal street gang have collectively engaged in a pattern of criminal activity within three years of the date of the offense alleged to have been committed the meaning of Penal Code section 186.22 and CALCRIM 1401, and that those offenses commonly benefited the gang in ways that were more than reputational. “I also admit that the murder of Jimmy Khieu benefited the East San Diego criminal street gang in a manner that is more than reputational. “I further admit that I have a prior conviction in case SCD225495 for Robbery (Penal Code section 211) that is both a strike prior pursuant to Penal Code sections 667(b) through (i), 1170.12, and 668, as well as a serious felony prior pursuant to Penal Code sections 667(a)(l), 668, and 1192.7(c).”

Chavez filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief under the authority of Delgadillo, supra. Indicating counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal, counsel asks the court to exercise the discretion granted by the opinion in Delgadillo to independently review the record for error as we would do if this case was reviewed under the procedure required in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We notified Chavez of his right to file his own brief on appeal. Chavez has filed a lengthy set of documents including exhibits, arguments and statements of myriad legal principles which largely have nothing to do with the order on which this appeal is based. Essentially Chavez uses his submission to challenge his conviction. Although Chavez testified under oath that he was a direct aider and abettor in this case, he now argues he was acting under duress at the time of his testimony. Accordingly he contends we should not accept his testimony as being accurate. He acknowledged he pleaded guilty in this case after the section was enacted. Chavez has not identified any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. DISCUSSION Appellate counsel has filed a brief under Delgadillo and asks the court to exercise its discretion to independently review the record for error. To assist the court in its review and consistent with the requirements of Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: whether the court erred in denying appellant’s resentencing petition after finding the petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 did not state a case for relief. We have independently reviewed the record for error consistent with the procedure followed in Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any potentially meritorious issues for reversal in appeal. Competent counsel has represented Chavez in this appeal. DISPOSITION The order denying appellant’s petition under section 1172.6 is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

DO, Acting P. J.

KELETY, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Delgadillo S266305 · 2022-12-19
People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12