People v. Roberson CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D069639 · 2016-09-12 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from judgments
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD225297
Trial judge: Charles G. Rogers
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: O'Rourke (author), Richard D. Huffman, Sr., Judith L. Haller

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T05:41Z · confidence low

The trial court resentenced defendants following a remand for the reduction of first-degree murder convictions to second-degree murder, denying Roberson's Romero motion and imposing lengthy sentences including consecutive terms and enhancements. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgments after finding no reasonably arguable issues on appeal under the Wende/Anders standard.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of Roberson's motion to strike prior strike under People v. Superior Court (Romero) “The court denied Roberson's motion to strike his prior strike under People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero) and sentenced him to a determinate term of 15 years based on his serious felony prior”	unclear	not reached	unsure The appellate court conducted a Wende/Anders review of the entire record but did not identify any reasonably arguable issues for reversal, effectively affirming the trial court's denial without specific analysis.
Sentencing of Craig to upper term on count 2 and consecutive terms on counts 1 and 2 “Did the trial court abuse its discretion by sentencing Craig to the upper term on count 2? (2) Did the trial court abuse its discretion by sentencing Craig to serve consecutive terms on counts 1 and 2?”	abuse of discretion	not reached	unsure Counsel identified these issues to assist the court, but the court stated it had not identified any reasonably arguable issues for reversal after reviewing the record.
Constitutionality of sentences (Cruel and Unusual Punishment) “Did Craig's sentence constitute cruel and unusual punishment? ... Did Roberson's sentence constitute cruel and unusual punishment in light of the fact Roberson was 22 years old when he committed the crimes?”	de novo	not reached	unsure The court reviewed the record for error but found no reasonably arguable issues, thereby affirming the sentences as constitutional.

Authorities

relied: People v. Chiu (2014) 59 Cal.4th 155 — There is no aider and abettor culpability for first degree premeditated murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine.
relied: People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 — Establishes the discretionary authority to strike prior serious or violent felony convictions under the Three Strikes Law.
relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to review the record for error when no issues are identified.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to file a brief identifying any arguable issues and request leave to withdraw.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court applied the Wende/Anders standard to review the entire record for error. It concluded that no reasonably arguable issues existed to warrant reversal, thereby affirming the judgments.

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

On remand after the first appeal (where first degree murder convictions were reduced to second degree murder under People v. Chiu), the San Diego Superior Court resentenced Craig to 11 years eight months plus 65 years to life and, after denying Roberson's Romero motion, resentenced Roberson to 15 years plus 159 years to life. On Wende/Anders review, the Court of Appeal found no reasonably arguable issues and affirmed both judgments.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Imposition of the upper term of nine years on Craig's attempted murder conviction (count 2) at resentencing “(1) Did the trial court abuse its discretion by sentencing Craig to the upper term on count 2?”	abuse of discretion	correct	unsure The opinion identifies this as an Anders issue and, after independent review of the record, finds no arguable error; it provides no analysis of the aggravating factors, so the result cannot be independently verified from the opinion, though the Wende procedure was properly followed.
Imposition of consecutive terms on Craig's counts 1 and 2 (murder and attempted murder) “(2) Did the trial court abuse its discretion by sentencing Craig to serve consecutive terms on counts 1 and 2?”	abuse of discretion	correct	unsure Consecutive sentencing for separate victims (a rival gang member shot and a bystander killed) is ordinarily within the trial court's discretion, and the court found no arguable issue; the opinion gives no further reasoning, so the view rests on the Wende review alone.
Craig's aggregate sentence did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment “(3) Did Craig's sentence constitute cruel and unusual punishment?”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion states no standard and offers no analysis beyond the Wende conclusion that no arguable issue exists; the sentence for second degree murder, attempted murder, and firearm/gang enhancements is within statutory ranges, but the opinion does not supply the record needed to evaluate a constitutional challenge.
Denial of Roberson's Romero motion to strike a prior strike conviction “The court denied Roberson's motion to strike his prior strike under People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero)”	abuse of discretion	correct	unsure Romero rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion; Roberson had two prior strikes, a serious felony prior, and a prison prior, and committed a gang-related shooting, so denial appears defensible, but the opinion recites no findings and only concludes under Wende that no arguable issue exists.
Roberson's sentence of 15 years plus 159 years to life did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment despite his age of 22 at the time of the crimes “(2) Did Roberson's sentence constitute cruel and unusual punishment in light of the fact Roberson was 22 years old when he committed the crimes?”	unclear	correct	unsure Youth-based Eighth Amendment protections generally apply to juveniles, and Roberson was an adult third-striker convicted of murder and attempted murder; the court's conclusion is consistent with existing law, but the opinion gives no analysis, and its description of a 25-year-to-life 'gang enhancement' on count 1 appears to be a mislabeling of the section 12022.53 firearm enhancement.

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.
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.
relied: People v. Chiu (2014) 59 Cal.4th 155 — An aider and abettor may not be convicted of first degree premeditated murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine; remedy is to allow the People to accept reduction to second degree murder or retry the greater offense.
relied: People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 — A trial court has discretion under Penal Code section 1385 to strike a prior strike conviction in furtherance of justice.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion follows the required Wende/Anders procedure: it recites the issues counsel identified, confirms defendants were invited to file supplemental briefs, and states it independently reviewed the record and found no arguable issues. It provides no substantive analysis of the identified sentencing issues, which is permissible in a Wende affirmance but leaves the reader unable to verify the conclusions, and the sentence recitation for Roberson's count 1 appears to mislabel the firearm enhancement as a gang enhancement.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 9/12/16 P. v. Roberson 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, D069639

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD225297)

FREDRICK DWAYNE ROBERSON et al., Defendants and Appellants.

APPEALS from judgments of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Charles G.

Rogers, Judge. Affirmed.

Boyce & Schaefer and Robert E. Boyce, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Frederick Dwayne Roberson.

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

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Codefendants Dontaye Coleman Craig and Fredrick Dwayne Roberson appeal judgments following a resentencing hearing conducted pursuant to our remittitur in a prior appeal of this matter. (People v. Craig, et al. (June 5, 2015, D063070) [nonpub.

opn.].) The below background information is partly taken from our prior opinion.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In 2012, Craig, Roberson, and another individual who is not a subject of this appeal, instigated a physical altercation with rival gang members in the Gaslamp Quarter area of downtown San Diego. During the fight a rival gang member was shot several times, and stray bullets struck two bystanders, killing one of them. Defendants were prosecuted as perpetrators, direct aiders and abettors, and aiders and abettors of the target crimes of simple assault or public fight, the natural and probable consequences of which were the shootings.

The jury convicted defendants of first degree murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187, subd.

(a); count 1), attempted murder (§§ 664/187, subd. (a); count 2), and assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2); count 3). On counts 1 and 2, the jury found true that a principal personally used a firearm within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivisions (b)-(e)(1), and as to counts 1 through 3, it found true the allegation that defendants committed the offenses for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang within the meaning of section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1).

The court sentenced Craig to 11 years eight months, plus 75 years to life.

Roberson admitted to two prior strike convictions (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)), one prior serious 1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)), and one prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (a)).

The court sentenced him to 20 years, plus 189 years to life.

While this case was on appeal the first time, the California Supreme Court held in People v. Chiu (2014) 59 Cal.4th 155, 158-159 (Chiu) that as a matter of law there is no aider and abettor culpability for first degree premeditated murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine. The People conceded the judgment must be reversed insofar as defendants' first degree murder convictions are concerned because the jury was instructed that guilt could be based on the natural and probable consequences doctrine, and the record did not show beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury did not rely on the doctrine. We directed the trial court to give the People the option of accepting a reduction of defendants' first degree murder convictions to second degree murder or retrying them on the greater offense. (Chiu, supra, at p. 168.)

We also modified the judgment to vacate Roberson's consecutive five-year gang enhancement imposed on count 3 under section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1) and replace it with the 15-year minimum term for parole eligibility required by section 186.22, subdivision (b)(5). Further, we directed the court to modify defendants' abstracts of judgment to comport with its oral pronouncement regarding victim restitution. On remand, the People elected to accept a reduction of both defendants' first degree murder convictions to second degree murder.

The court resentenced Craig to a total of 11 years eight months, plus 65 years to life as follows: On count 1, it imposed 15 years to life and a consecutive 25-year-to-life 3 term on the firearm enhancement. On count 2, it imposed an upper term of nine years for attempted murder and a consecutive 25-year-to-life term on the firearm enhancement (§ 12022.53, subds. (d), (e)(1)). On count 3, it imposed one year for assault with a firearm plus one year eight months for the gang enhancement (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1).)

The court denied Roberson's motion to strike his prior strike under People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero) and sentenced him to a determinate term of 15 years based on his serious felony prior, and an indeterminate term of 159 years to life as follows: 45 years to life on the second degree murder conviction plus 25 years to life for the gang enhancement; on the attempted murder conviction, 39 years to life, plus 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement; on the assault with a firearm conviction, a 25-year-to-life term.

Defendants appeal under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders). We offered defendants the opportunity to file their own briefs on appeal but they did not respond.

DISCUSSION

Both defendants' appellate counsel state they are unable to identify any reasonably arguable issues for appeal and have asked this court to review the record for error.

(Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Pursuant to Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, Craig's counsel has identified the following issues in order to assist the court in its search for error:

(1) Did the trial court abuse its discretion by sentencing Craig to the upper term on count 2?

4 (2) Did the trial court abuse its discretion by sentencing Craig to serve consecutive terms on counts 1 and 2?

(3) Did Craig's sentence constitute cruel and unusual punishment?

Roberson's counsel has identified the following issues in order to assist the court in its search for error:

(1) Did the court err by denying Roberson's Romero motion?

(2) Did Roberson's sentence constitute cruel and unusual punishment in light of the fact Roberson was 22 years old when he committed the crimes?

We have reviewed the entire record consistent with the mandate of Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738. We have not identified any reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Craig and Roberson have been represented by competent counsel on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgments are affirmed.

O'ROURKE, J.

WE CONCUR:

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

HALLER, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Chiu S202724 · 2014-06-02
People v. Superior Court (Romero) S045097 · 1996-06-20
People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12