People v. Thornton CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from an order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCE396110
- Trial judge
- Evan P. Kirvin
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Judith D. McConnell, Patricia Guerrero
Analysis
The trial court denied William Cecil Thornton's petition to recall his sentence and reduce his offense to a misdemeanor under Penal Code section 1170.18, despite his prior admission of a disqualifying 'super strike' prior. The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial in an unpublished opinion following a Wende/Anders review, finding no arguable issues for reversal.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of petition for resentencing and reduction to misdemeanor under Penal Code section 1170.18“The trial court denied the petition by a written order.” | unclear | not reached | unsure The appellate court conducted a Wende/Anders review of the record but did not articulate a specific standard of review or provide substantive legal reasoning for affirming the trial court's denial. The opinion states only that the court 'has not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal' and that 'Competent counsel has represented Thornton on this appeal.' Because the opinion provides no analysis of the statutory eligibility requirements or the effect of the admitted 'super strike' prior, the specific legal basis for the affirmance is not apparent from the text. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to review the record for arguable issues 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 to withdraw from representation in a criminal appeal by filing a brief identifying any arguable issues and requesting the court to review the record.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound in its adherence to Wende and Anders requirements, as it documents the counsel's brief, the offer to the defendant to file a supplemental brief, and the court's independent review. However, it is substantively empty regarding the merits, as it fails to explain why the trial court's denial was correct, particularly given the factual contradiction between the defendant's plea admissions and his petition allegations.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court denied Thornton's petition under Penal Code section 1170.18 (Proposition 47) to recall his stipulated 32-month sentence for possession of a controlled substance and reduce the offense to a misdemeanor, Thornton having admitted a strike prior and a disqualifying 'super strike' in his plea. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief, Thornton filed no supplemental brief despite an extension, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of petition for recall of sentence and reduction to a misdemeanor under Penal Code section 1170.18 (Proposition 47)“Although Thornton admitted the strike prior and the disqualifying “super strike” in his change of plea, in his post judgment petition he alleged he did not have a strike prior and that he was eligible for resentencing under section 1170.18.” | unclear | correct | agree with court Section 1170.18, subdivision (i) makes a defendant with a prior conviction for an offense listed in section 667, subdivision (e)(2)(C)(iv) ineligible for Proposition 47 relief. Thornton admitted exactly such a super strike as part of his plea, and his conviction and sentence had already been affirmed in the first appeal. His unsupported post-judgment assertion that he had no strike prior cannot overcome his own admission in the plea. On this record the denial was compelled by the statute, and the Court of Appeal's Wende review reasonably found no arguable issue. |
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 no meritorious issues should identify in the brief anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal to assist the court's review.
The appellate opinion: sound — The court followed the Wende/Anders procedure, gave Thornton an extended opportunity to file a supplemental brief, identified the only possible issue (denial of the resentencing petition), and affirmed; the admitted super strike plainly disqualifies him under section 1170.18, subdivision (i), so the result is correct. The opinion does not expressly cite the disqualification provision or address whether Wende review was even required for a postconviction order, but neither omission affects the outcome.
Opinion
Filed 11/5/20 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, D077683
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCE396110)
WILLIAM CECIL THORNTON,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Evan P. Kirvin, Judge. Affirmed. John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In November 2019, William Cecil Thornton entered into a plea agreement under the terms of which Thornton pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a controlled substance (Health and Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)). He admitted the requirement that he register as a sex offender (Pen. Code,1 § 290). He admitted a strike prior (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)) and admitted a “super strike” within the meaning of section 667, subdivision (e)(2)(c)(IV). The plea agreement stipulated to a 32-month sentence. Thornton was sentenced to a 32-month prison term in accordance with the agreement. Thornton appealed following his sentence but did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. In an unpublished opinion, People v. Thornton, D077231 (Aug. 29, 2020), this court affirmed Thornton’s conviction and sentence.2 While the first appeal was pending, Thornton filed a petition in the trial court seeking recall of his sentence and reduction to a misdemeanor under section 1170.18 (Proposition 47). Although Thornton admitted the strike prior and the disqualifying “super strike” in his change of plea, in his post judgment petition he alleged he did not have a strike prior and that he was eligible for resentencing under section 1170.18. The trial court denied the petition by a written order. Thornton has 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 Thornton the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal. Thornton responded with a request for 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. 2 We take judicial notice of our files in People v. Thornton, supra, D077231. 2 additional time to file a supplemental brief. He represented he would not need further time and would not seek an additional extension of time. We granted the request and extended the time for his response. The time for filing a supplemental brief has passed and no further request for time has been received. We conclude Thornton does not intend to file a supplemental brief in this appeal. 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 a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the possible merits of this appeal: Whether the court erred in denying Thornton’s petition for resentencing. 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 Thornton on this appeal.
3 DISPOSITION The order denying Thornton’s petition for resentencing and reduction of his offense to a misdemeanor is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
GUERRERO, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12