People v. Hayes CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from an order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCE319579
- Trial judge
- Daniel G. Lamborn
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), O'Rourke, William S. Dato
Analysis
The trial court denied Hayes's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95, determining he was ineligible for relief as a matter of law because the record of conviction established he was the actual killer. The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial after a Wende/Anders review found no arguable issues for reversal.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95“The court denied the petition, finding Hayes was not eligible for relief as a matter of law since he was the actual killer.” | de novo | correct | agree with court The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no arguable issues for reversal. The trial court correctly applied the law that a petitioner who was the actual killer is ineligible for relief under section 1170.95, a determination supported by the record of conviction which included Hayes's admission to shooting the victim. |
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 by the defendant.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to withdraw from representation after identifying no arguable issues, requiring the court to independently review the record.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound in its application of the Wende/Anders framework, correctly identifying the trial court's reliance on the record of conviction to establish Hayes as the actual killer. However, it is a brief, unpublished opinion that does not explicitly cite the specific statutory or case law defining the 'actual killer' exception to section 1170.95 eligibility, relying instead on the trial court's factual finding.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court denied Alfredo Hayes's Penal Code section 1170.95 resentencing petition, finding him ineligible as a matter of law because the record of conviction (his change of plea form) showed he was the actual killer who shot the victim. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief, Hayes filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of Penal Code section 1170.95 petition for resentencing on the ground that petitioner was the actual killer and therefore ineligible for relief as a matter of law“The court denied the petition, finding Hayes was not eligible for relief as a matter of law since he was the actual killer.” | unclear | correct | agree with court Senate Bill 1437 narrowed felony-murder and natural-and-probable-consequences liability for accomplices but left liability intact for the actual killer (Pen. Code, § 189, subd. (e)(1)). Hayes pleaded guilty to second degree murder, admitted he unlawfully killed the victim and personally used a firearm, and the facts recited show he shot the victim in the head and admitted doing so. A petitioner who was the actual killer cannot make a prima facie showing of eligibility, so denial without an evidentiary hearing was proper. The appellate court did not articulate a standard of review or discuss the merits beyond its Wende conclusion, but the result follows from the record it describes. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel finds no arguable issues, the reviewing court 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 possible issues to assist the court's independent review.
- missed: People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496 — Wende/Anders independent review is constitutionally required only in a defendant's first appeal of right, not in appeals from postconviction orders; the court applied Wende review without addressing whether it was required for an appeal from a section 1170.95 denial.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The affirmance is correct because a petitioner who admitted being the actual killer is ineligible for section 1170.95 relief, and the record recited supports that finding. The opinion, however, performs a Wende review without addressing whether Wende applies to postconviction appeals and offers no substantive analysis of the merits or the standard of review, leaving the reasoning thin.
Opinion
Filed 1/20/21 P. v. Hayes 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, D077916
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCE319579)
ALFREDO A. HAYES, Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Daniel G. Lamborn, Judge. Affirmed. Michael C. Sampson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In May 2013, Alfredo Hayes pleaded guilty to second degree murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187, subd. (a)) and robbery (§ 211). He admitted that he unlawfully killed the victim and that he personally used a firearm in the commission of each count (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)). The court sentenced Hayes 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. to an indeterminate term of 25 years to life. Hayes did not appeal his conviction. In February 2019, Hayes filed a petition for resentencing under section 1170.95, alleging he was convicted of felony murder under a theory of natural and probable consequences and that he could not now be convicted of the same offense under current law. The court appointed counsel and obtained briefing from both parties. Citing the change of plea form, the prosecution argued Hayes admitted he was the actual killer who shot the victim. The court denied the petition, finding Hayes was not eligible for relief as a matter of law since he was the actual killer. Hayes 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 Hayes the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. STATEMENT OF FACTS Hayes and an accomplice met with the victim to conduct a drug purchase. During the discussion, Hayes took out a handgun and demanded the victim’s drugs. The victim refused and Hayes shot him in the head. During the police investigation, Hayes admitted he shot the victim but claimed it was an accident. 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 2 has identified the following possible issue which was considered in evaluating the merits of this appeal: Whether the court erred in denying Hayes’s petition. 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 Hayes on this appeal in denying Hayes’s petition based on a review of the record of conviction. DISPOSITION The order denying the petition for resentencing under section 1170.95 is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
O’ROURKE, J.
DATO, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12