People v. Martinez CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D065343 · 2014-07-10 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD144092
Trial judge: David J. Danielsen
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Judith L. Haller (author), Patricia D. Benke, Joan K. Irion

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T06:37Z · confidence low

The trial court denied appellant's motion for resentencing under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012, finding him ineligible due to prior serious and violent felony convictions. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after a Wende review found no reasonable arguable issues.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of motion for resentencing/recall of sentence under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 “The court found that because appellant had been convicted of two serious and/or violent felonies (assault with personal use of a deadly weapon and assault with the infliction of great bodily injury) he was ineligible for resentencing.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The appellate court conducted a Wende review and concluded that no reasonable arguable appellate issues existed, thereby affirming the judgment without explicitly analyzing the trial court's legal application of the Three Strikes Reform Act eligibility criteria.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Mandates appellate counsel to review the record for error when no arguable issues are presented.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to file a brief identifying any possible, though not arguable, issues for the court's review.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound in its application of the Wende/Anders framework for appointed counsel appeals. However, it fails to address the specific legal argument regarding the trial court's interpretation of the Three Strikes Reform Act's eligibility requirements, relying solely on the conclusion that no arguable issues exist.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:31Z · confidence low

The trial court treated Martinez's pro se motion under the Three Strikes Reform Act (Pen. Code, § 1170.126) as a petition for recall of sentence and denied it without prejudice, finding him ineligible because his current commitment included two serious and/or violent felonies (assault with personal use of a deadly weapon and assault with great bodily injury), while appointing counsel to explore any rights as to the two concurrent 25-to-life terms for attempted vehicle theft. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief, Martinez filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal conducted an independent record review, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial (without prejudice) of petition for recall of sentence under Penal Code section 1170.126 on the ground that the current convictions include serious and/or violent felonies, rendering appellant ineligible for resentencing “The court found that because appellant had been convicted of two serious and/or violent felonies (assault with personal use of a deadly weapon and assault with the infliction of great bodily injury) he was ineligible for resentencing.”	unclear	correct	unsure The appellate court performed only a Wende/Anders independent review and stated no standard of review or substantive analysis. The trial court's ineligibility finding is consistent with section 1170.126, subdivision (e)(1) as to the assault counts, and the denial was without prejudice with counsel appointed. However, the trial court itself flagged that two concurrent 25-to-life terms were imposed on non-serious, non-violent attempted vehicle-theft counts, and whether eligibility is assessed count-by-count or in the aggregate was an unsettled, contested question in July 2014; the opinion does not discuss it. Without more, I cannot say the ineligibility conclusion was clearly right or clearly wrong.
Wende/Anders determination that no arguable issue exists, including as to whether appointed trial counsel was ineffective in declining to file a recall petition directed at the two concurrent 25-years-to-life terms on the attempted vehicle theft counts “has disclosed no reasonable arguable appellate issues. Competent”	unclear	correct	unsure Under Wende the court independently reviews the record and need not explain its reasons for rejecting potential issues. Because the denial was without prejudice and counsel's decision not to file was a tactical judgment described only as 'best interest,' an ineffective-assistance claim on this record would likely fail for lack of a developed record. Still, the opinion gives no analysis of the count-by-count eligibility question that underlies this potential issue, so I cannot independently confirm the conclusion.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel finds no arguable issues, the Court of Appeal must independently review the entire record for arguable error before affirming.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous may so advise the court and file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, after which the court decides whether the case is frivolous.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the standard Wende/Anders procedure, correctly recites the proceedings, and affirms a denial that was without prejudice, so the result is defensible. It does not, however, address the then-unsettled question whether section 1170.126 eligibility is evaluated count-by-count, even though the trial court itself noted the two 25-to-life terms on non-serious, non-violent attempted vehicle-theft counts and appellate counsel identified the related issue.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 7/10/14 P. v. Martinez 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, D065343

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD144092)

JUAN C. MARTINEZ, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, David J.

Danielsen, Judge. Affirmed.

Appellate Defenders, Inc. and Patricia Ihara, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In July 1999 a jury found Juan C. Martinez guilty of four felonies: assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1))1; assault with force likely to produce 1 All subsequent undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)); and two counts of attempted unlawful taking of a vehicle (§ 664; Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)). In connection with the assault charges, the jury found appellant had personally used a deadly weapon (§ 1192.7, subd. (c)(23))

and inflicted great bodily injury upon a person who was not an accomplice (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). The jury also found appellant guilty of three misdemeanors as lesser included offenses of three other charged felonies.

In a bifurcated proceeding, the jury found true allegations defendant had suffered four prior felony convictions: unlawful taking of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851); escape (§ 4532, subd. (b)(1)); and two robberies (§ 211) (serious/violent felony prior convictions within the meaning of section 667, subdivisions (b) through (i)). After dismissing the jury, the court found true allegations defendant had suffered a serious felony prior (§§ 667, subd. (a)(1), 1192.7, subd. (c)(19)); a prison prior (§ 667.5, subd. (b)); and a no probation prior (§ 1203, subd. (e)(4)).

The court sentenced appellant to 33 years to life: 25 years to life to run concurrently for the four felonies; three years consecutively for the great bodily injury enhancement; five years consecutively for the prior serious felony conviction; and a 140- day concurrent jail term for the three misdemeanors.

In November 2013, appellant, acting in propria persona, filed a motion for resentencing pursuant to the recently enacted Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 2 (§ 1170.126 et seq.) (Act).2 The court deemed the motion a petition for recall of sentence and denied it without prejudice. The court found that because appellant had been convicted of two serious and/or violent felonies (assault with personal use of a deadly weapon and assault with the infliction of great bodily injury) he was ineligible for resentencing. The court also noted that as part of his current commitment, appellant had received two concurrent 25-years-to-life sentences for each of the attempted vehicle theft convictions and appointed counsel to determine what rights, if any, appellant might have under the Act. In December, appointed counsel advised the court she had concluded it would not be in appellant's "best interest" to file a petition to recall the sentence.

DISCUSSION

Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. Counsel presents no argument for reversal but asks that this court review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.

Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel refers to two possible but not arguable issues: (1) whether the court erred in concluding appellant did not qualify for recall of sentence and resentencing under the Act, and (2) whether appointed counsel 2 In his motion, appellant states he was committing an automobile burglary when the owner approached and attacked him. According to appellant, he defended himself and maintained the owner was not injured in the ensuing "fist fight." Although this is the only information in the record concerning the incident underlying his convictions, it is inconsistent with the jury's guilty verdicts and the great bodily injury and personal use of a deadly weapon findings. Appellant filed a prior appeal in this case: D034261. That appeal, which related solely to a sentencing issue, does not include a statement of facts concerning the underlying crimes. 3 was ineffective for failing to file a petition for recall of the two concurrent 25-years-to life sentences on the attempted vehicle thefts.

We granted appellant permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded.

A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issues referred to by appellate counsel, has disclosed no reasonable arguable appellate issues. Competent counsel has represented appellant on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

HALLER, J.

WE CONCUR:

BENKE, Acting P. J.

IRION, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12