People v. James CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D069142 · 2016-03-24 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from an order
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD105774
Trial judge: David J. Danielson
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Patricia D. Benke (author), Alex C. McDonald, Judith L. Haller

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T05:54Z · confidence high

The trial court granted the defendant's petition to recall his sentence under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012, reducing three theft-related felonies to misdemeanors and resentencing him to 35 years to life, while excluding the assault with a deadly weapon count from resentencing. The Court of Appeal affirmed the order, finding the trial court correctly applied the statute and that no other reasonably arguable issues existed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Trial court's order granting the petition to recall sentence under Penal Code section 1170.18 and 1170.126, reducing counts 2, 3, and 4 to misdemeanors and resentencing the defendant. “The record shows the court granted defendant's petition to reduce the three theft-related felony convictions on counts 2, 3 and 4 to misdemeanors under section 1170.18.”	de novo	correct	agree with court The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, finding that the trial court correctly applied the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 to the eligible counts and that the exclusion of count 1 was legally required.
Trial court's determination that the defendant was ineligible for resentencing on count 1 (assault with a deadly weapon) under Penal Code section 1170.126. “we independently conclude defendant was ineligible under the Act for resentencing on count 1. (See § 1170.126, subd. (e)(1).)”	de novo	correct	agree with court The appellate court independently reviewed the statutory eligibility requirements and concluded that because count 1 involved the personal use of a deadly weapon, it was a serious felony excluded from resentencing under the Act.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to review the record for reasonably arguable issues when a defendant is represented by counsel on appeal who finds no arguable issues.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to file a brief identifying any possible, though not arguable, issues to assist the court in its independent review of the record.
relied: People v. Yearwood (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 161 — Explains that the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 diluted the three strikes law by reserving life sentences for cases where the current crime is a serious or violent felony or a disqualifying factor is proven.
relied: People v. Johnson (2015) 61 Cal.4th 674 — Describes the pre-Act three strikes law where a defendant with two prior serious or violent felonies was subject to a 25-years-to-life sentence for any additional felony.
relied: People v. Superior Court (Kaulick) (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1279 — Describes the pre-Act three strikes law where a defendant with two prior serious or violent felonies was subject to a 25-years-to-life sentence for any additional felony.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly applies the statutory eligibility criteria of the Three Strikes Reform Act to the specific facts of the defendant's convictions, distinguishing between the eligible theft counts and the ineligible assault count based on the serious felony definition. The court also properly conducts an independent review of the record pursuant to Wende and Anders, finding no other arguable issues.

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

In 2015 the trial court granted Robert James's petition under Penal Code sections 1170.18 and 1170.126, reducing his 1995 theft-related felony convictions on counts 2, 3 and 4 to misdemeanors and resentencing him to 35 years to life (25 years to life on count 1 for assault with a deadly weapon plus two five-year serious-felony enhancements). On a Wende appeal, the Court of Appeal independently concluded count 1 was ineligible for Three Strikes Reform Act relief because it is a serious felony under section 1192.7, subdivision (c)(23), found no other arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Resentencing on counts 2, 3 and 4 after granting the section 1170.18 petition and reinstating the 25-years-to-life term on count 1 with two five-year section 667(a)(1) enhancements “As a result, the court resentenced defendant to an aggregate term of 35 years to life, after the court reinstated his sentence of 25 years to life on count 1 and imposed five-year terms for each of his serious felony priors.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The court conducted a Wende/Anders independent review of the record and found no reasonably arguable issue with the resentencing. Nothing in the opinion suggests error: the reductions were granted, and the remaining sentence follows from this court's earlier modification adding the two serious-felony enhancements. The opinion does not state a distinct standard of review for this ruling.
Defendant's ineligibility for section 1170.126 resentencing on count 1 (assault with a deadly weapon with a section 1192.7(c)(23) allegation) “we independently conclude defendant was ineligible under the Act for resentencing on count 1. (See § 1170.126, subd. (e)(1).)”	de novo	correct	agree with court Section 1170.126, subdivision (e)(1) limits eligibility to inmates serving a life term for a felony not defined as serious or violent by section 667.5(c) or 1192.7(c). The 1995 jury verdict on count 1 included a true finding under section 1192.7(c)(23) (personal use of a deadly weapon), making count 1 a serious felony and therefore outside the Act. The court's reading of the statute is straightforward and consistent with Yearwood's description of the Act. Defendant himself excluded count 1 from his petition.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed counsel files a no-issue brief, the appellate court must independently review the entire record for arguable issues.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel may identify possible but not arguable issues to assist the court's independent review.
relied: People v. Yearwood (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 161 — The Three Strikes Reform Act reserves indeterminate life sentences for cases where the current offense is a serious or violent felony or a disqualifying factor is pled and proved; otherwise the recidivist is sentenced as a second striker.
relied: People v. Johnson (2015) 61 Cal.4th 674 — Before the Act, a defendant with two prior serious or violent felonies faced 25 years to life on conviction of any new felony.
relied: People v. Superior Court (Kaulick) (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1279 — Describes the pre-Act operation of the three strikes law and the Act's resentencing scheme.
missed: People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 — In a Wende appeal where the defendant files a supplemental brief, the appellate opinion should set out the contentions raised and explain why they fail; the opinion here states only that it read and considered the supplemental brief.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court correctly applied section 1170.126, subdivision (e)(1) and section 1192.7, subdivision (c)(23) to hold count 1 ineligible, and its Wende review was properly framed with the governing authorities. It did not, however, describe or address the contentions in defendant's supplemental brief as Kelly contemplates, and the disposition mischaracterizes the order as one 'denying' the motion when the trial court in fact granted the petition.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

Opinion

Filed 3/24/16 P. v. James 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, D069142

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD105774)

ROBERT A. JAMES, Defendant and Appellant.

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

Danielson, Judge. Affirmed.

Mary Woodward Wells, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. OVERVIEW In 1995, a jury found defendant and appellant Robert A. James guilty of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code,1 §§ 245, subd. (a) & 1192.7, subd. (c)(23); count 1);

commercial burglary (§ 459; count 2); two counts of petty theft with priors (§§ 484, 666;

counts 3 & 4); and misdemeanor simple battery (§ 242; count 5). The court found true two serious felony prior convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)); two prison priors (§ 667.5, subd. (b)); and two serious/violent felony priors (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)).

The court originally sentenced defendant to three consecutive terms of 25 years to life on counts 1, 3 and 4. (§ 667, subd. (e)(2).) The court imposed 180 days on the misdemeanor battery, time having been considered served, and struck the prison priors and serious felony priors, for a total sentence of 75 years to life.

This court affirmed the judgment. (People v. James (Nov. 22, 1996, D023261)

[nonpub. opn.].) In so doing, this court ordered defendant's sentence modified to add five years for each of the two serious felony priors. (§ 667, subd. (a)(1).) As such, defendant was resentenced to 85 years to life. The modified judgment was affirmed on further appeal by, and petitions to, this court. (People v. James (Nov. 17, 2000, D034933)

[nonpub. opn.]; In re James (Nov. 17, 2000, D036103) [petn. den.]; and In re James (June 10, 2011, D059774) [petn. den.].)

In August 2015, defendant, pursuant to sections 1170.18 and 1170.126, petitioned the court to recall his sentence on counts 2, 3 and 4 stemming from his 1995 convictions.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 We note the record specifically shows his petition excluded his conviction on count 1 for assault with a deadly weapon (§§ 245, subd. (a) & 1192.7, subd. (c)(23)).

The record shows the court granted defendant's petition to reduce the three theft- related felony convictions on counts 2, 3 and 4 to misdemeanors under section 1170.18.

As a result, the court resentenced defendant to an aggregate term of 35 years to life, after the court reinstated his sentence of 25 years to life on count 1 and imposed five-year terms for each of his serious felony priors.

Defendant timely appealed from the order granting his motion. Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), appointed counsel filed a brief on behalf of defendant setting forth the key facts of the case and requesting we review the entire record. In addition, pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, appointed counsel set forth the following possible, but not arguable, issues to assist us in conducting our Wende review, including whether the court erred in "ruling" defendant was ineligible for resentencing on count 1 pursuant to section 1170.126.

On our own motion, we gave defendant 30 days to file a brief on his behalf with this court. Defendant in fact filed a supplemental brief, which we have read and considered in connection with his appeal. Affirmed.

DISCUSSION

On November 6, 2012, California voters approved the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (the Act), which amended the three strikes law effective November 7, 2012.

(People v. Yearwood (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 161, 167.) Before passage of the Act, a defendant convicted of two prior serious or violent felonies was subject to a 25-years-to- 3 life sentence upon his or her conviction of any additional felony. (People v. Johnson (2015) 61 Cal.4th 674, 680; People v. Superior Court (Kaulick) (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1279, 1285.) However, the "Act diluted the three strikes law by reserving the life sentence for cases where the current crime is a serious or violent felony or the prosecution has pled and proved an enumerated disqualifying factor. In all other cases, the recidivist will be sentenced as a second strike offender." (People v. Yearwood, supra, at pp. 167-168; see § 1170.126, subd. (e)(1) [noting "[a]n inmate is eligible for resentencing if: [¶] [t]he inmate is serving an indeterminate term of life imprisonment . . . for a conviction of a felony or felonies that are not defined as serious and/or violent felonies by subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 or subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7" (italics added)].)

Here, as noted ante, defendant in his petition did not request a recall of sentence with respect to count 1. And for good reason. Pursuant to subdivision (c)(23) of section 1192.7, a "serious felony" includes "any felony in which the defendant personally used a dangerous or deadly w0eapon." Because defendant was convicted in 1995 of assault with a deadly weapon pursuant to section 245, subdivision (a)(1), which included an allegation under section 1192.7, subdivision (c)(23), we independently conclude defendant was ineligible under the Act for resentencing on count 1. (See § 1170.126, subd. (e)(1).)

Finally, a review of the entire record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 has disclosed no other reasonably arguable appellate issues in connection with defendant's motion.

4 DISPOSITION

The court's order denying defendant's motion is affirmed.

BENKE, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

HALLER, J.

McDONALD, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Johnson S219454; S219819 · 2015-07-02
The People v. Super. Ct. B246632 · 2013-04-30
People v. Yearwood No. F063712 · 2013-01-29
People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12