People v. Lamphere CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D077880 · 2021-01-04 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from an order
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. CRN26309
Trial judge: Runston G. Maino
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Patricia D. Benke, William S. Dato

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T05:16Z · confidence low

The trial court denied Lamphere's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95, holding he failed to establish a prima facie case of eligibility. The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial in an unpublished opinion following a Wende review, finding no arguable issues for reversal.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95 “Following briefing, the court denied the petition by written order holding Lamphere had not presented a prima facie case of eligibility for relief under section 1170.95.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, stating it had reviewed the entire record and found no arguable issues for reversal. The opinion does not explicitly state the standard of review (e.g., abuse of discretion) but implies the trial court's determination was correct by finding no error.

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 conduct an independent review.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires counsel to file a brief identifying any arguable issues and the court to review the record independently to ensure no errors were overlooked.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it follows the required Wende/Anders protocol for appointed counsel appeals. However, it provides no substantive legal analysis of the section 1170.95 eligibility criteria, relying solely on the court's independent review of the record to affirm the trial court's denial.

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 Aaron Lamphere's Penal Code section 1170.95 petition for resentencing on his 1994 second degree murder conviction, finding by written order after appointing counsel and receiving briefing that he had not made a prima facie showing of eligibility. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief, Lamphere 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 for resentencing at the prima facie stage “Following briefing, the court denied the petition by written order holding Lamphere had not presented a prima facie case of eligibility for relief under section 1170.95.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The court conducted independent Wende/Anders review rather than articulating a standard. The facts recited from the prior opinion show Lamphere was the sole caregiver who placed his hand over the child's mouth, causing asphyxia; he was therefore the actual killer. Even if the 1994 jury were instructed on a felony-murder or natural-and-probable-consequences theory, an actual killer remains liable for murder under amended section 189, subdivision (e)(1), and could still be convicted under the law as amended by Senate Bill 1437, so he is ineligible as a matter of law. The opinion does not, however, describe the trial court's reasoning or the jury instructions, so the analysis is thin.
Appellate procedure: conducting Wende independent review of a postconviction section 1170.95 appeal and accepting counsel's Wende/Anders brief “We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.”	unclear	correct	agree with court Wende review is constitutionally required only on first appeal of right from a conviction; published Court of Appeal authority (People v. Serrano; People v. Cole) held it does not apply to postconviction appeals and that such appeals may be dismissed as abandoned when no supplemental brief is filed. The court nonetheless undertook full independent review, which is more protective of the defendant and within its discretion, so the choice does not prejudice Lamphere, but the opinion does not acknowledge the issue or the contrary authority.

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 issues on a defendant's first appeal of right.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous must so advise the court and refer to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
missed: People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496 — Wende independent review is not required in appeals from postconviction orders; when counsel files a no-issues brief and the defendant files no supplemental brief, the appeal may be dismissed as abandoned.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The result is defensible because the recited facts show Lamphere was the actual killer and therefore ineligible for section 1170.95 relief as a matter of law, and conducting Wende review was more protective than the dismissal permitted by Serrano and Cole. But the opinion offers no analysis of the prima facie standard, the trial court's stated basis, or the jury instructions, and does not acknowledge the published authority holding Wende review inapplicable to postconviction appeals.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 1/4/21 P. v. Lamphere 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, D077880

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. CRN26309)

AARON THOMAS LAMPHERE,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Runston G. Maino, Judge. Affirmed. Aaron J. Schechter, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 1994, Aaron Lamphere was convicted of second degree murder (Pen.

Code,1 § 187, subd. (a)), inflicting corporal injury to a child with a great bodily injury enhancement (§§ 273d and 12022.7), and child abuse (§ 273a, subd. (1)). Lamphere was sentenced to a term of 22 years to life in prison.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. Lamphere appealed his conviction and in 1995 the court upheld the convictions in an unpublished opinion in People v. Lamphere (July 28, 1995, D021518). In 2020, Lamphere filed a petition under section 1170.95 seeking resentencing of his murder conviction. The court appointed counsel and received briefing from the parties. Following briefing, the court denied the petition by written order holding Lamphere had not presented a prima facie case of eligibility for relief under section 1170.95. Lamphere filed a timely notice of appeal. STATEMENT OF FACTS Appellate counsel has set forth a statement of facts of the underlying trial, taken from our prior opinion. We will adopt that summary as a statement of facts for this opinion. Lamphere lived in a two-bedroom apartment with R.C., two of her sons, 18-month-old Joseph and four-year-old William, and another roommate. Lamphere had met R.C. in October 1992, moved in with her, and they later became engaged. Lamphere, a young marine, worked during the day and provided child care for R.C.’s children while she was working in the evenings and on weekends. On May 31, 1993, R.C. got out of bed around 2:00 p.m. and left the apartment about a half hour later. Upon leaving, she saw William in the living room playing a video game and Joseph sitting on the couch. When she returned at about 3:30 p.m., William was still playing in the living room; Lamphere said Joseph was taking a nap. In the bedroom she saw part of Joseph’s legs and bottom under a blanket. A short time later, R.C. and 2 William walked to a swimming pool in the apartment complex, leaving Lamphere and Joseph in the apartment. About 30 to 45 minutes later, a neighbor came to the pool and told R.C. that Joseph was sick. R.C. went to the neighbor’s apartment, where she saw Lamphere attempting to perform CPR on Joseph. Paramedics arrived and took Joseph to a hospital. Lamphere told R.C. he had found Joseph wrapped in blankets and not breathing. Joseph died at the hospital. Joseph’s death was a result of hypoxic encephalopathy, a decrease in the supply of oxygen to the brain, which was in term a result of asphyxia, an interference with the use of oxygen by the body. The autopsy also revealed a four-day-old second degree burn on the sole of Joseph’s foot. At a police interview on the evening of Joseph’s death, Lamphere said he had found Joseph with the blanket wrapped around his head. The next day Lamphere was interviewed again. At this interview he told police that while he was caring for Joseph, Joseph cried incessantly. Lamphere said he then put his hand over Joseph’s mouth for “a few minutes” or “about a minute.” He said he “had a seal around [Joseph’s] mouth,” but did not know if he had covered his nose, and he thought Joseph was getting oxygen because he continued to cry. He told police that when he took his hand off Joseph’s mouth, Joseph was breathing “really deep.” He then put Joseph to bed. He said he was afraid, but did not think he had hurt Joseph because Joseph’s eyes were open and his breathing had returned to normal. 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 Lamphere the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.

3 DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief. Counsel 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: Whether the court erred in denying Lamphere’s petition for resentencing under section 1170.95. 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 Lamphere on this appeal. DISPOSITION The order denying Lamphere’s petition for resentencing under section 1170.95 is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

BENKE, Acting P. J.

DATO, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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