gno.law

People v. Dill CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D077315 · 2020-11-03 · Unpublished

Proceeding
appeal from a judgment
Trial court
Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCE393903
Trial judge
Patricia K. Cookson
Outcome
affirmed — Affirmed.
Area
criminal
Panel
Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Judith L. Haller, Joan K. Irion

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T05:19Z · confidence low

The trial court convicted the defendant of possession of a firearm by a felon and sentenced him to four years in custody. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende and finding no arguable issues for reversal.

Ruling reviewedStandardThe courtThe model
Denial of defendant's motion to exclude evidence of his entry into Noyes's house and statements made therein
“Was denial of Dill’s motion to exclude evidence of his entry into Noyes’s house and the statements made therein reversible error.”
unclearnot reachedunsure
The opinion does not provide a substantive analysis of the evidentiary ruling; it only lists the issue as one considered by counsel and states that the court found no arguable issues for reversal after reviewing the record.

Authorities

  • relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to identify arguable issues or file a brief stating no issues exist, and mandates the court to independently review the record for error.
  • relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires counsel to file a brief identifying any arguable issues and the court to conduct an independent review of the record when counsel finds no issues.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the Wende/Anders framework for reviewing a case where counsel identifies no issues. However, it provides no substantive legal analysis for the specific evidentiary issue flagged by counsel, relying solely on the court's independent review to affirm.

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

A jury convicted Davion Myzell Dill of possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1)), he admitted a strike prior, and the trial court sentenced him to four years; the trial court had also denied his motion to exclude evidence of his entry into Timothy Noyes's apartment and statements made there. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief identifying only that evidentiary ruling as a possible issue, Dill filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewedStandardThe courtThe model
Denial of Dill's motion to exclude evidence of his entry into Noyes's residence and the statements he made there
“Was denial of Dill’s motion to exclude evidence of his entry into Noyes’s house and the statements made therein reversible error.”
unclearcorrectagree with court
The opinion does not state a standard of review or discuss the issue; it simply concludes after Wende review that no arguable issue exists. On the facts recited, the entry into the apartment minutes after Dill fled the traffic stop and his statement 'They're after me' were part of a continuous flight and relevant to identity and consciousness of guilt, so admission under Evidence Code section 352 would ordinarily be within the trial court's discretion. The record quoted is thin, but nothing in it suggests an abuse of discretion.
Judgment of conviction and four-year sentence (independent Wende review of the entire record)
“We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.”
unclearcorrectagree with court
The court followed the Wende/Anders procedure: counsel filed a no-issues brief identifying a possible issue, the defendant was invited to file his own brief and did not, and the court states it reviewed the entire record. The opinion recites the facts, charges, and sentence. Nothing in the recited record indicates error in the conviction or the sentence, which is consistent with a doubled low or middle term for a section 29800 offense with a strike.

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, and the court must then examine the record.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion correctly follows the Wende/Anders procedure, recites the facts and procedural history, identifies the one potential issue counsel flagged, and states that an independent review of the record disclosed no arguable issues. It does not, however, explain why admission of the residence-entry evidence was not an abuse of discretion, leaving the reader to infer the flight/consciousness-of-guilt rationale.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 11/3/20 P. v. Dill 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, D077315

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCE393903)

DAVION MYZELL DILL,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Patricia K. Cookson, Judge. Affirmed. Bruce L. Kotler, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. A jury convicted Davion Myzell Dill of one count of possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code,1 § 29800, subd. (a)(1)). Dill admitted a strike prior (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)). Dill was sentenced to term of four years in custody.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. Dill 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 arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Dill the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. STATEMENT OF FACTS We take the following accurate summary of the facts from the opening brief for convenience to provide background for this appeal. A. Prosecution case. 1. Law Enforcement and Civilian Witness Testimony. On August 22, 2019, at approximately 1:30 a.m., San Diego County Sheriff’s Deputies Jonathon Young and Shain Stoner, who were in separate vehicles, initiated a traffic stop of a red Mitsubishi because it did not have a front license plate, near the intersection of North Magnolia and Bradley in the Lakeside area. Young positioned his patrol vehicle behind the Mitsubishi and activated his overhead lights, but the car failed to yield as they traveled west bound on Bradley, requiring him to activate his siren. The Mitsubishi entered the 67 southbound from Bradley, where it continued to fail to yield. As they approached the I-8 freeway the Mitsubishi took the I-8 exit getting off at Magnolia. The Mitsubishi pulled over and slowed along the curb-line of North Magnolia and the passenger door started to open. The Mitsubishi stopped and Dill, who wore a red sweatshirt, got out. The Mitsubishi then took off and was pursued by Stoner. According to Young, after getting out of the car, Dill jumped a guardrail and reached into his jacket throwing a red object into the brush area along the curb-line, as he ran up an embankment. Young had stopped his patrol 2 vehicle and got out simultaneous with Dill. Young’s body-cam video was on, but it did not show Dill throwing anything. Dill fled on foot with Young in pursuit, following Dill’s path through a brushy area, across the on-ramp to I- 8 westbound to Magnolia, jumping a fence and running along a culvert that went underneath I-8. They ended up on the other side of the freeway near an apartment complex, at 360 Compton Street, where Dill scaled a steep wall and continued towards the apartment complex; however, Young was not able to make it over the wall to follow him. Young went back to his vehicle to assist Deputy Stoner, who was in pursuit of the Mitsubishi. On his way to his vehicle Young searched with a flashlight for the object ditched earlier by Dill, finding nothing. Once he got back into his vehicle he drove to I-8 to intercept Stoner’s pursuit of the Mitsubishi. But, he never assisted Stoner in the pursuit because it was terminated due to safety issues. Timothy Noyes, meanwhile, lived in an apartment at 387 Compton Street. In the still early morning hours, at around 1:30 a.m., Noyes awoke to the sound of the fan on top of his dresser being knocked over. He go up out of bed and saw a “suspect”2 on top of the dresser, who said, “They’re after me.” Noyes responded, “You’ve got to go,” and escorted him out the front door. He wanted to stay on the porch, however Noyes told him no, and he left going between buildings. Noyes went back inside to use the bathroom and came back out to talk to police officers, pointing out the direction the man went. He and a neighbor opened the laundry room for the officers to search. Noyes explained how his bedroom window and blinds were open and the screen was pulled away prior to the fan being knocked over. He authenticated a photograph of his daughter’s bedroom window with a handprint on it. Noyes 2 Noyes did not identify Dill as the suspect inside his home. 3 did not give the man permission to climb through his window. Deputy David Lannon responded to take a report of a home being broken into. Noyes explained to him how an individual had come in through the window. Lannon took a series of eight photographs at Noyes’s residence documenting the entry, which he described. The photographs were of Noyes’s bedroom window, his daughter’s bedroom window with the palm print, and the front of the residence. At around 1:40 a.m., El Cajon police officer Evan Gardner became involved in the search for the man who ran from the Mitsubishi, at the same time, he was also aware of the home entry. He was working with officer Dan Thompson who had a “hunch” to check the roof of the apartment building in the vicinity of Compton Street and West Madison Avenue. Gardner and Thompson went up and spotted Dill lying on the roof. Anticipating that he might jump, Gardner went back down, and observed Dill jump down. Once Dill had jumped, Gardner ordered him at gunpoint to put his hands up and to get on the ground. Dill was arrested sometime after 1:43 a.m. He was not arrested under the name Davion Dill, as during the arrest he gave the name of Tyeron Carter with a date of birth of January 28, 1999, which matched an actual person. Young and Stoner met back up at the scene where Dill was taken into custody, the apartments at 387 Compton Street, which was less than 300 yards from the wall that Young could not scale. Young stated3 that Dill “had forced his way into a residence near the Compton Street—so there was a question as to do we have a burglary . . . . It was at the apartment building that Young first told Stoner that the person who ran from the car had 3 Although Young concluded it was Dill who went inside Noyes’s home, again, Noyes did not identify Dill as the intruder. 4 dropped something. Young had not communicated to dispatch that he saw an object being tossed when it happened. The deputies went back to the area of the embankment where Dill had left the car. There wasn’t a lot of area to be searched, as the embankment was small. It consisted of the brush area just after the guardrail. There, they found a loaded .22-caliber revolver with red duct tape around the handle, no more than five feet from the roadway. It was not until after the gun was found that Young mentioned over the radios or dispatch that an object had been thrown. 2. Stipulations One and Two “No. 1 stipulation: It’s stipulated that the defendant, David Dill, has previously been convicted of a felony; [¶] No. 2: It is stipulated that Anthony Dennison was the registered owner of a red 2002 Mitsubishi Eclipse, license plate number 7POJ537.” 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 in its review, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified the following possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Was denial of Dill’s motion to exclude evidence of his entry into Noyes’s house and the statements made therein reversible error. 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 Dill on this appeal.

5 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

HALLER, J.

IRION, J.

Cites, in this corpus