People v. Leon CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D077745 · 2020-12-08 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from an order
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCS179354
Trial judge: Garry G. Haehnle
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Joan K. Irion, Patricia Guerrero

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T05:18Z · confidence low

The trial court denied Leon's petition to recall his sentence under Penal Code section 1170.95, finding he was ineligible for relief because he was a direct aider and abettor who shared the intent to kill and was an active participant. The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial after an independent review of the record pursuant to Wende and Anders, finding no arguable issues for reversal.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of petition to recall sentence under Penal Code section 1170.95 “The court denied Leon’s petition by written order. In its order, the court found Leon was not convicted on a probable consequence theory or on a felony murder.”	de novo	correct	agree with court The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial, finding no arguable issues for reversal after an independent review of the record. The trial court's findings that Leon was a direct aider and abettor who shared the intent to kill and was an active participant are consistent with the statutory requirements for ineligibility under section 1170.95, which excludes individuals who were not convicted of felony murder or murder under a theory of natural and probable consequences.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to review the record for error and file a brief identifying arguable issues, or file a Wende brief if none are found.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to file a brief identifying arguable issues and the court to conduct an independent review of the record to ensure no arguable issues are overlooked.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — sound

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

The trial court denied Jose Luis Leon's Penal Code section 1170.95 petition by written order after reviewing the record of conviction, finding he was not convicted on a natural and probable consequences or felony-murder theory but was a direct aider and abettor who shared the perpetrator's intent to kill. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief, Leon filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of section 1170.95 petition on the ground that Leon was ineligible for relief because he was a direct aider and abettor who shared the intent to kill and was not convicted on a natural and probable consequences or felony-murder theory “The court found Leon was a direct aider and abettor who shared the perpetrator’s intent to kill and was an active participant in the crime.”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion is a Wende/Anders review that states no arguable issue exists but gives no analysis. The trial court's statement that Leon was not convicted on a natural and probable consequences or felony-murder theory, if grounded in the jury instructions, would support denial at the prima facie stage as a matter of law. However, the additional finding that Leon 'shared the perpetrator's intent to kill' reads like factual weighing, which People v. Drayton (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 965 held is improper before an order to show cause issues. Because the opinion does not disclose whether the jury was instructed on those theories or what the court relied upon, I cannot determine whether the denial was proper.
Whether the trial court relied on proper items in the record of conviction (transcripts, jury instructions, appellate briefs, and the prior appellate opinion) in denying the petition without an evidentiary hearing “The court reviewed the record of Leon’s conviction, including transcripts, jury instructions, appellate briefs, and the opinion of this court in case No. D048306.”	unclear	correct	agree with court Contemporary authority (People v. Verdugo (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 320; People v. Lewis (2020) 43 Cal.App.5th 1128, review granted) permitted a trial court to consult the record of conviction, including jury instructions and the prior appellate opinion, at the prima facie stage. Reliance on these materials was consistent with the law as it stood in December 2020, though use of trial transcripts to make factual findings about intent would raise the Drayton problem noted above.

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 arguable error.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal lacking in merit may file a brief identifying issues considered to assist the court's independent review.
missed: People v. Verdugo (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 320 — A trial court may review the record of conviction, including jury instructions and the prior appellate opinion, to determine whether a section 1170.95 petitioner has made a prima facie showing of eligibility.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the Wende/Anders procedure and reaches a defensible result, but it offers no analysis of whether the trial court's finding that Leon 'shared the perpetrator's intent to kill' was permissible at the prima facie stage under Drayton, or whether the denial rested on jury instructions showing no natural and probable consequences or felony-murder theory was presented. Given counsel expressly flagged these two issues, a brief explanation would have been expected; the silence leaves a gap.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 12/8/20 P. v. Leon 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, D077745

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCS179354)

JOSE LUIS LEON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Garry G. Haehnle, Judge. Affirmed. Arthur Martin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2005, Jose Luis Leon was convicted of second degree murder (Pen.

Code,1 § 187, subd. (a)). Leon appealed his conviction, which this court affirmed in an unpublished opinion (People v. Leon (Mar. 25, 2008, D048306) [nonpub. opn.]).

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. In 2019, Leon filed a petition to recall his sentence under section 1170.95. The court appointed counsel and solicited briefing. The court reviewed the record of Leon’s conviction, including transcripts, jury instructions, appellate briefs, and the opinion of this court in case No. D048306. The trial court denied Leon’s petition by written order. In its order, the court found Leon was not convicted on a probable consequence theory or on a felony murder. The court found Leon was a direct aider and abettor who shared the perpetrator’s intent to kill and was an active participant in the crime. Leon 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 Leon the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.

DISCUSSION2 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 issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: 1. Whether the trial court relied on proper items in the record in denying Leon a resentencing hearing; and 2. Whether the trial court erred in finding Leon was ineligible for relief under section 1170.95.

2 The facts of the offense are fully set forth in our prior opinion. (People v. Leon, supra, D048306.) We will not repeat them here. 2 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 Leon on this appeal. DISPOSITION The order denying Leon’s petition to recall his sentence under section 1170.95 is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

IRION, J.

GUERRERO, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12