People v. Thornton CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D068880 · 2016-02-29 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from an order
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCN130098
Trial judge: David J. Danielsen
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), O'Rourke, McINTYRE

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T05:56Z · confidence low

The trial court denied Keith Thornton's petition to redesignate his burglary conviction as a misdemeanor under Proposition 47, finding the property value exceeded the statutory threshold. The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial after an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of petition for relief under Penal Code section 1170.18 (Proposition 47) “The court denied Proposition 47 relief, finding the burglary was of a private garage, and Thornton could not show the value of the stolen vehicle was less than $950.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The appellate court did not explicitly state a standard of review for the trial court's factual findings or legal conclusions regarding the Proposition 47 petition. Instead, the court conducted an independent review of the entire record pursuant to People v. Wende and Anders v. California, concluding that no reasonably arguable issues for reversal existed. Because the court affirmed based on the absence of arguable error rather than applying a specific standard like 'abuse of discretion' or 'de novo' to the specific ruling, the standard is unclear from the text.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to review the record for error when no issues are identified, and the court to conduct an independent review.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel who believes an appeal is frivolous, requiring a brief identifying potential issues and the court's independent review.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for reviewing a record where counsel identifies no arguable issues. However, it is substantively thin because it does not articulate the legal basis for affirming the trial court's specific factual findings regarding the value of the stolen vehicle or the nature of the garage, relying solely on the absence of arguable error.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:30Z · confidence low

The trial court granted Thornton's Proposition 36 petition and resentenced him to 35 years, 8 months to life, but denied his Proposition 47 petition to redesignate his burglary and receiving-stolen-vehicle convictions as misdemeanors, finding the burglary was of a private garage and that he had not shown the stolen vehicle was worth less than $950. On appeal, counsel filed a Wende brief, Thornton filed nothing, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed the order denying section 1170.18 relief.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of Proposition 47 (Pen. Code, § 1170.18) petition to redesignate the first degree burglary, second degree commercial burglary, and receiving a stolen vehicle (§ 496d) convictions as misdemeanors “The court denied Proposition 47 relief, finding the burglary was of a private garage, and Thornton could not show the value of the stolen vehicle was less than $950.”	unclear	correct	agree with court First degree residential burglary is not a Proposition 47 offense, and a burglary of a private garage cannot qualify as shoplifting under section 459.5, which requires entry into a commercial establishment during business hours. Section 496d is not among the statutes amended by Proposition 47, and even if treated as analogous to section 496, the petitioner bears the burden of showing the property's value did not exceed $950 (People v. Sherow (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 875), which the record indicates Thornton did not do. The court's Wende review and affirmance are consistent with this law.

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 — Counsel who finds no meritorious issues may file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, and the court then reviews the record.
missed: People v. Sherow (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 875 — A Proposition 47 petitioner bears the burden of establishing eligibility, including that the value of the property at issue did not exceed $950; this published Fourth District authority directly supports the trial court's value finding but was not cited.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the Wende/Anders procedure, identifies the issue counsel flagged, and affirms after independent review, and the result is correct because neither first degree burglary, burglary of a private garage, nor section 496d receiving a stolen vehicle of unproven value qualifies for Proposition 47 relief. It is a bare-bones Wende disposition that does not cite section 459.5 or People v. Sherow on the petitioner's burden, so the reasoning is not spelled out even though the outcome is defensible.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 2/29/16 P. v. Thornton 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, D068880

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN130098)

KEITH THORNTON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, David J.

Danielsen, Judge. Affirmed.

Richard L. Fitzer for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Respondent.

In 2002, a jury convicted Keith Richard Thornton of first degree burglary (Pen.

Code,1 §§ 459, 460); second degree commercial burglary (§ 459) and receiving a stolen vehicle (§ 496d). Multiple strike allegations were also found true. Thornton was sentenced in this case and one other to an aggregate term of 102 years to life in prison.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. In March 2014, Thornton filed a petition under Proposition 36 (§ 1170.126) to recall his sentence. In August 2015, Thornton filed a petition under Proposition 47 (§ 1170.18) to redesignate certain felony convictions as misdemeanors.

Ultimately the trial court granted Proposition 36 relief and resentenced Thornton to an aggregate term of 35 years, 8 months to life. The court denied Proposition 47 relief, finding the burglary was of a private garage, and Thornton could not show the value of the stolen vehicle was less than $950.

Thornton filed a timely notice of appeal.

Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), indicating he 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 Thornton the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal but he has not responded.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The probation report shows that Thornton stole a motorcycle out of an open, attached garage on April 2, 2001. On April 13, 2001, a victim reported an all terrain vehicle (ATV) was stolen from a garage in Imperial County. On April 15, 2001, Thornton was observed loading an ATV into his truck. He was arrested. It was determined that the original ATV had been taken apart and reassembled with parts from other ATV's.

2 DISCUSSION

As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, requesting this court to review the record for error. In compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified the following possible, but not reasonably arguable issue to assist us in our review of the record:

Whether the trial court erred by denying Thornton's motion to reduce the three counts in case SCN130098 to misdemeanors.

We have reviewed the entire record in compliance with Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738 and have not been able to identify any reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Thornton on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The order denying Thornton's petition for relief under section 1170.18 is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

McINTYRE, J.

O'ROURKE, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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