People v. Valdez CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D078240 · 2021-02-26 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from an order
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCE333769
Trial judge: John M. Thompson
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Judith L. Haller, William S. Dato

Analysis

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

The trial court denied Valdez's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95, finding he was the actual killer and thus failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief. The Court of Appeal affirmed the order, concluding that Valdez's arguments regarding felony murder and natural and probable consequences were unsupported by the record.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95 “The court found Valdez was the actual killer and therefore had not made a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief.”	unclear	correct	agree with court agree with court

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appellate counsel to review the record for arguable issues when filing a Wende brief.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires independent review of the record by the court when appointed counsel files a no-merit brief.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the Wende/Anders framework to review the record. It accurately identifies that the appellant's claims regarding accomplice liability theories are contradicted by the record showing he was the actual killer.

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 Valdez's Penal Code section 1170.95 resentencing petition at the prima facie stage after reviewing the record of conviction and the prior appellate opinion and finding he was the actual killer in two murders. On appeal, counsel filed a Wende brief, Valdez filed a supplemental brief admitting he was the actual killer, 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 failure to make a prima facie showing because Valdez was the actual killer “The court found Valdez was the actual killer and therefore had not made a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief.”	unclear	correct	agree with court Senate Bill 1436's amendments to sections 188 and 189 preserved murder liability for the actual killer (§ 189, subd. (e)(1)), and section 1170.95 relief is limited to persons convicted under felony-murder or natural-and-probable-consequences theories. The opinion recounts that Valdez was convicted with a personal-discharge-causing-death finding, was not tried as an aider and abettor, and himself admits he was the actual killer, so he is ineligible as a matter of law; the lone instruction referencing natural and probable consequences concerned implied malice from his own acts, not accomplice liability.
Consideration of the record of conviction, including the prior appellate opinion, at the prima facie stage “The court stated it had reviewed the record of conviction as well as this court’s opinion in People v. Valdez, supra, D068994.”	unclear	correct	agree with court Published Court of Appeal decisions at the time permitted trial courts to consult the record of conviction, including a prior appellate opinion, to determine whether a petitioner is ineligible as a matter of law, and the Supreme Court later confirmed that approach in People v. Lewis (2021). The Court of Appeal did not expressly analyze the point, treating it as raising no arguable issue, but the result is correct given the jury's personal-discharge finding and Valdez's own admission.
Denial of appointment of counsel on the section 1170.95 petition before the prima facie determination “Did the trial court err in denying appellant’s request for appointment of counsel, and is any error harmless?”	unclear	correct	agree with court Whether counsel had to be appointed upon filing a facially sufficient petition was unsettled and pending before the Supreme Court when this opinion issued; the Supreme Court later held in People v. Lewis (2021) that counsel must be appointed but that the failure is reviewed for harmlessness under Watson. Because Valdez was the actual killer and concedes it, any error in not appointing counsel could not have affected the outcome, so the court's conclusion that the issue presents no arguable basis for reversal is defensible even though it did not spell out the harmlessness analysis.

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 should file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion reaches the correct result because an admitted actual killer with a personal-discharge-causing-death finding is ineligible for section 1170.95 relief as a matter of law, and it properly rejects Valdez's mischaracterization of a malice instruction as a natural-and-probable-consequences theory. It is thin, however: it does not cite any section 1170.95 authority, does not explain why reliance on the record of conviction and the denial of counsel were not arguable issues, and does not address the then-existing published authority on whether Wende applies to postconviction appeals.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 2/26/21 P. v. Valdez 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, D078240

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCE333769)

JOSE LUIS VALDEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, John M. Thompson, Judge. Affirmed. Jose Luis Valdez, in pro. per.; and Aaron J. Schechter, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2015, a jury convicted Jose Luis Valdez of one count of first degree murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187, subd. (a)); one count of second degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)); and one count of conspiracy to commit murder (§ 182, subd. (a)(1)). The jury found true an allegation that Valdez personally and 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. intentionally discharged a firearm causing death (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). Valdez was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 65 years to life plus life without parole. Valdez appealed, and in 2017, this court affirmed the judgment in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Valdez (Jan. 31, 2017, D068994) [nonpub.

opn.].)2 In September 2020, Valdez filed a petition for resentencing under section 1170.95. In October 2020, the court denied the petition in a written order. The court stated it had reviewed the record of conviction as well as this court’s opinion in People v. Valdez, supra, D068994. The court found Valdez was the actual killer and therefore had not made a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief. Valdez 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 counsel 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 Valdez the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, and Valdez has filed a lengthy supplemental brief which we will discuss below. STATEMENT OF FACTS The facts of the offenses have been fully set forth in our prior opinion. (People v. Valdez, supra, D068994.) We will not repeat them here. 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, and in 2 We grant counsel’s request to take judicial notice of our prior opinion. 2 compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has listed the following possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: 1. Did the trial court err in denying appellant’s petition for resentencing pursuant to section 1170.95; 2. Did the court err in considering the record of appellant’s conviction, and is any error harmless; and 3. Did the trial court err in denying appellant’s request for appointment of counsel, and is any error harmless? Valdez has submitted a supplemental letter brief. He has attached copies of documents already in the record. He freely admits he was the actual killer in both murder cases. Based on his interpretation of section 1170.95, he argues it does not matter because his petition states a prima facie case for relief. Valdez claims he was prosecuted on a felony murder theory and a natural and probable consequence theory. Both contentions are not supported by the record. He was the actual killer in two gang-related murders. He was not charged with or tried as an aider and abettor. The only reference to natural and probable consequences in the record is in a jury instruction regarding murder discussing malice arising from the perpetrator’s own acts which would give rise to a risk of death. Such instruction has nothing to do with the modification to sections 188 and 189 regarding accomplice liability. In short, Valdez’s brief has not identified any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. 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 Valdez on this appeal.

3 DISPOSITION The order denying Valdez’s petition for resentencing under section 1170.95 is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

HALLER, J.

DATO, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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