People v. Ridley CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of Riverside County · No. BAF1500978
- Trial judge
- Frederick Paul Dickerson III
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Patricia D. Benke, Joan K. Irion
Analysis
The trial court resentenced the defendant to 14 years and 4 months after striking one serious felony prior and staying two counts under Penal Code section 654, following a remand from a prior appeal. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, finding no arguable issues for reversal after reviewing the record pursuant to People v. Wende.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Trial court's decision to strike only one of the two serious felony priors“Whether the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing only one of the serious felony prior convictions.” | abuse of discretion | not reached | unsure The appellate court identified this as a 'possible, but not arguable issue' and stated it had not discovered any arguable issues for reversal after reviewing the entire record. The court did not explicitly analyze the merits of the discretion claim but concluded it did not warrant reversal. |
Defendant's claim regarding failure to review Brady motion“Neither “issue” is cognizable on this appeal from a postconviction resentencing proceeding ordered by this court when we affirmed the original judgment.” | unclear | not reached | agree with court The court dismissed the issue as not cognizable on this specific appeal from a resentencing proceeding, implying the issue was either waived or properly resolved in the prior appeal which affirmed the convictions. |
Defendant's claim regarding lack of factual basis for 1999 prior conviction“Neither “issue” is cognizable on this appeal from a postconviction resentencing proceeding ordered by this court when we affirmed the original judgment.” | unclear | not reached | agree with court The court dismissed the issue as not cognizable on this specific appeal from a resentencing proceeding, similar to the Brady claim, likely because the validity of the prior conviction was not challenged in the prior appeal that affirmed the judgment. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to review the record for error when no arguable issues are identified, and the court to independently review the record.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to withdraw from representation when no arguable issues exist, requiring a brief identifying potential issues and court review.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound in its application of Wende and Anders, correctly identifying the scope of review for a resentencing appeal. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' opinion because it dismisses the defendant's specific claims (Brady and factual basis) as 'not cognizable' without explaining the legal basis for that limitation (e.g., law of the case or waiver) or analyzing the 'possible' issue regarding the strike prior, relying solely on the conclusion that no arguable issues were found.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionOn remand after a prior appeal, the Riverside County Superior Court stayed two counts under Penal Code section 654, struck one of two serious felony priors but declined to strike the second, and resentenced Ridley to 14 years 4 months. On this second appeal, counsel filed a Wende brief, Ridley filed a supplemental brief raising a Brady issue and a challenge to the factual basis of a 1999 prior, and the Court of Appeal found no arguable issues and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Trial court's exercise of discretion on remand to strike only one of two serious felony prior enhancements (Penal Code § 667, subd. (a)) and resentence to 14 years 4 months“Whether the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing only one of the serious felony prior convictions.” | abuse of discretion | correct | agree with court The court identified this as the Anders issue and, after independent Wende review of the record, found no arguable issue. The trial court exercised the discretion this court directed it to exercise and partially granted relief; nothing in the opinion suggests the court misunderstood its discretion or relied on improper factors. The opinion gives little detail, but the result is consistent with the limited remand. |
Ridley's supplemental-brief claims (failure to rule on a Brady motion; lack of factual basis for 1999 prior conviction) held not cognizable on appeal from the postconviction resentencing“Neither “issue” is cognizable on this appeal from a postconviction resentencing proceeding ordered by this court when we affirmed the original judgment.” | de novo | correct | agree with court Both claims attack the original convictions and the prior-conviction admissions, which were affirmed in D074196 and became final as to those issues; an appeal after a limited remand for resentencing is confined to matters arising from the resentencing. The court's conclusion is consistent with settled law on the limited scope of appeals following remand, though it cites no authority for the proposition. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed counsel finds no arguable issues, the Court of Appeal must independently review the entire record for arguable error.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal lacking in merit must file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court performed the required Wende/Anders review, identified the only plausible issue (the trial court's partial exercise of discretion on the serious felony priors), and correctly treated the pro per claims attacking the original convictions as outside the scope of an appeal from a limited resentencing remand. It cited no authority for the non-cognizability ruling and gave no analysis of why the refusal to strike the second prior was within discretion, leaving minor gaps in an otherwise defensible result.
Opinion
Filed 9/25/20 P. v. Ridley 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, D077239
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. BAF1500978)
CODY NED RIDLEY,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Frederick Paul Dickerson III, Judge. Affirmed. Cody Ned Ridley, in pro. per.; and Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2017, a jury convicted Cody Ned Ridley of criminal threats, first degree burglary, false imprisonment, dissuading a witness, and violating a family court protective order. Ridley admitted two strike priors and two serious felony priors. At sentencing, the court struck one of the strike priors and imposed a determinate term of 19 years 4 months in prison. Ridley appealed his conviction and in January 2019 this court filed an unpublished opinion. (People v. Ridley (Jan. 23, 2019, D074196) [nonpub. opn.].) We affirmed the convictions but remanded the case to the trial court for resentencing. Specifically, we directed the court to stay the sentences on the criminal threat and false imprisonment counts pursuant to Penal Code1 section 654. We also directed the court to exercise its discretion to consider striking one or more of the serious felony priors. On remand, the court stayed the false imprisonment and criminal threat counts under section 654. The court granted Ridley’s motion to strike one of the serious felony priors but denied the motion as to the second prior. Ridley was resentenced to a determinate term of 14 years 4 months. The court filed an amended abstract of judgment. Ridley again appealed. 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 arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Ridley the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal. Ridley has responded with a supplemental brief. We will discuss the supplemental brief later. STATEMENT OF FACTS The facts of the underlying offenses are fully set forth in our prior opinion in case No. D074196. We will not repeat them here. DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to review the record for error. To assist the court, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 has identified a possible, but not arguable issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Whether the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing only one of the serious felony prior convictions. In his supplemental brief he repeats counsel’s request that we review the record for error. Ridley lists two possible issues: 1. Failure to review Brady motion; and 2. Failure to have a factual basis for his 1999 prior conviction. Neither “issue” is cognizable on this appeal from a postconviction resentencing proceeding ordered by this court when we affirmed the original judgment. We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Ridley on this appeal. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.
WE CONCUR:
BENKE, Acting P. J.
IRION, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12