People v. Roberts CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from an order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD118963
- Trial judge
- Christine V. Pate
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Alex C. McDonald, Judith L. Haller
Analysis
The trial court denied Roberts' petitions for relief under Proposition 47 and Proposition 36, citing his prior conviction for rape and sex offender registration status as disqualifying factors. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, finding no reasonably arguable issues for reversal.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking relief under Proposition 47 (Pen. Code, § 1170.18) to reduce petty theft conviction to a misdemeanor.“The court denied his petitions because as to each proposition Roberts had a prior conviction for rape and was required to register as a sex offender.” | unclear | not reached | unsure The appellate court did not explicitly state a standard of review for the trial court's denial of the Proposition 47 petition. However, in a Wende/Anders context, the court reviews the record for 'reasonably arguable issues.' The court found no such issues, implying the trial court's application of the statutory disqualifier (prior rape conviction) was not reasonably arguable as erroneous. The opinion does not provide a detailed legal analysis of the equal protection claim raised by the defendant, merely stating that no reasonably arguable issues were found after review. |
Denial of petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking relief under Proposition 36 (Pen. Code, § 1170.126) to recall third strike sentence.“The court denied his petitions because as to each proposition Roberts had a prior conviction for rape and was required to register as a sex offender.” | unclear | not reached | unsure Similar to the Proposition 47 claim, the appellate court did not articulate a specific standard of review for the Proposition 36 denial. It relied on the Wende mandate to review the record for error and concluded that the denial, based on the disqualifying prior conviction, did not present a reasonably arguable issue of cruel and unusual punishment. The court did not engage in a substantive analysis of the constitutional claim. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to identify any reasonably arguable issues on appeal and mandates the court to independently review the record if counsel finds none.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to file a brief identifying potentially arguable issues while arguing they are frivolous, allowing the court to review the record.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound in that it follows the required Wende/Anders protocol for indigent appeals where counsel finds no arguable issues. However, it is substantively thin; it fails to address the specific constitutional arguments (equal protection and cruel and unusual punishment) raised by the defendant, relying solely on the conclusion that no 'reasonably arguable' issues exist without explaining why the statutory disqualifiers do not trigger constitutional scrutiny in this context.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual disposition unusual dispositionThe trial court denied Roberts's habeas petition seeking Proposition 47 reduction of his 1996 felony petty theft to a misdemeanor and Proposition 36 recall of his 25-years-to-life third strike sentence, finding him ineligible under both measures because he had a prior rape conviction and was required to register as a sex offender. On appeal, counsel filed a Wende brief, Roberts filed nothing, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issue, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of Proposition 47 (Pen. Code § 1170.18) petition to reduce felony petty theft with a prior to a misdemeanor, based on disqualifying prior rape conviction / sex offender registration requirement; rejection of equal protection challenge“The court denied his petitions because as to each proposition Roberts had a prior conviction for rape and was required to register as a sex offender.” | de novo | correct | agree with court Section 1170.18, subdivision (i) expressly excludes from relief any person with a prior conviction for an offense requiring registration under section 290, subdivision (c), or a 'super strike' listed in section 667, subdivision (e)(2)(C)(iv); rape qualifies under both prongs. Distinguishing offenders by prior sex-offense history is a classification that readily survives rational basis review, the standard applicable to sentencing distinctions, so the equal protection claim is not arguable. The opinion does not cite the statutory subdivision or any equal protection authority, but on a Wende review its conclusion is consistent with the plain text of the statute. |
Denial of Proposition 36 (Pen. Code § 1170.126) petition to recall third strike indeterminate sentence, based on disqualifying prior rape conviction; rejection of cruel and unusual punishment challenge“Whether denial of Proposition 36 recall of his third strike sentence, again based upon a disqualifying prior conviction, resulted in a sentence that amounted to cruel and unusual punishment.” | de novo | correct | agree with court Section 1170.126, subdivision (e)(3) makes an inmate ineligible for resentencing if he has a prior conviction for an offense listed in section 667, subdivision (e)(2)(C)(iv), which includes sexually violent offenses such as rape. The electorate's decision to withhold retroactive leniency from recidivists with violent sexual priors does not render an otherwise lawful three strikes sentence cruel or unusual, and the court's independent Wende review finding no arguable issue is consistent with the statute. The opinion is conclusory and cites no authority on the Eighth Amendment point, but the result is defensible. |
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 error before affirming.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal frivolous may so advise the court and identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, after which the court conducts its own review.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court followed the Wende/Anders procedure, listed the two potential issues counsel identified, and reached a result that matches the express disqualification provisions of sections 1170.18, subdivision (i) and 1170.126, subdivision (e)(3) for defendants with prior rape convictions. It did not, however, cite those statutory subdivisions or any authority addressing the equal protection or cruel and unusual punishment arguments, leaving the reasoning thin even for a Wende affirmance.
Opinion
Filed 10/22/15 P. v. Roberts 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, D067651
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD118963)
JAMES RAY ROBERTS,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Jeffrey F.
Fraser and Christine V. Pate, Judge. Affirmed.
Denise M. Rudasill, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance by Respondent.
In 1996, James Ray Roberts was convicted of petty theft (Pen. Code,1 § 484) and giving false information to a police officer (§ 148.9, subd. (a)). The court found true two serious/violent felony prior convictions (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)). The court also found true 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. the allegation under section 666 of a prior theft-related conviction, which elevated the petty theft conviction to a felony. Roberts was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 25 years to life.
In December 2014, Roberts filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus with the superior court. In the petition he requested relief under Proposition 47 (§ 1170.18) to reduce his petty theft conviction to a misdemeanor. Roberts also requested relief under Proposition 36 (§ 1170.126) to recall his third strike sentence since it was based on a nonviolent or serious felony.
The court denied his petitions because as to each proposition Roberts had a prior conviction for rape and was required to register as a sex offender. Roberts had argued that denying reduction of the offense to a misdemeanor violated equal protection and that denying Proposition 36 recall would violate the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
Roberts filed a timely notice of appeal.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), indicating she has not been able to identify any reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Roberts the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal but he has not responded.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The 1996 offense involved Roberts taking groceries from a Vons store without paying for them.
2 DISCUSSION
As we have indicated, counsel has asked this court to review the record for error as required by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified the following possible, but not arguable issues to assist this court in its review of the record:
1. Whether the denial of Proposition 47 relief, based on the existence of the disqualifying rape prior conviction, denied Roberts equal protection.
2. Whether denial of Proposition 36 recall of his third strike sentence, again based upon a disqualifying prior conviction, resulted in a sentence that amounted to cruel and unusual punishment.
We have reviewed the entire record as mandated by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738. We have not discovered any reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Roberts on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
HALLER, J.
McDONALD, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12