People v. Renfro CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from an order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of Riverside County · No. RIF122094
- Trial judge
- John D. Molloy
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Joan K. Irion, Truc T. Do
Analysis
The trial court denied Rick William Renfro's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.18, finding his felony convictions for robbery and willful infliction of corporal injury were not eligible for relief. The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende and finding no arguable issues for reversal.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.18“The trial court denied the petition by written order finding that the felony convictions in this case are not eligible for relief under section 1170.18.” | unclear | not reached | unsure The appellate court did not apply a specific standard of review to the trial court's legal determination because it was conducting a Wende review. The court stated it had reviewed the entire record and found no arguable issues for reversal, effectively affirming the trial court's conclusion without explicitly analyzing the legal merits of the ineligibility finding. |
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 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to withdraw from representation after identifying no arguable issues, requiring a brief explaining the lack of issues and a court review of the record.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound in its adherence to Wende and Anders requirements for reviewing a case where counsel finds no arguable issues. However, it is substantively thin as it provides no legal analysis for why the convictions were ineligible under section 1170.18, relying solely on the court's independent review finding no error.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe Riverside County Superior Court denied Rick William Renfro's Penal Code section 1170.18 (Proposition 47) petition to resentence his 2009 convictions for robbery (§ 211) and willful infliction of corporal injury (§ 273.5), finding those felonies ineligible for relief. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief, Renfro 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 petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.18 on the ground that robbery (§ 211) and corporal injury (§ 273.5) convictions are not eligible offenses.“The trial court denied the petition by written order finding that the felony convictions in this case are not eligible for relief under section 1170.18.” | unclear | correct | agree with court Section 1170.18 permits reduction only of specified theft and drug offenses (e.g., §§ 459.5, 473, 476a, 490.2, 496, 666, Health & Saf. Code §§ 11350, 11357, 11377). Robbery under section 211 and corporal injury under section 273.5 are violent/serious felonies not enumerated in the statute, so the petition was facially ineligible as a matter of law. The appellate court did not articulate a standard of review but noted in a footnote that the issues are purely legal; its conclusion that no arguable issue exists is correct. |
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 before affirming.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous may so advise the court and request to withdraw, accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
The appellate opinion: sound — The court followed the Wende/Anders procedure, offered the defendant an opportunity to file his own brief, independently reviewed the record, and reached the plainly correct result because neither robbery nor corporal injury is an offense reducible under section 1170.18. The opinion does not discuss whether Wende review is even required in an appeal from a postconviction order (an issue then pending before the Supreme Court), but because the court conducted the fuller review anyway, that omission does not affect the soundness of the disposition.
Opinion
Filed 2/26/21 P. v. Renfro 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, D078169
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. RIF122094)
RICK WILLIAM RENFRO,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Riverside County, John D. Molloy, Judge. Affirmed. Rachel Varnell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In 2009, a jury convicted Rick William Renfro of robbery (Pen. Code,1 § 211) and willful infliction of corporal injury (§ 273.5, subd. (a)). The court sentenced Renfro to an indeterminate term of 50 years to life in prison.
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. In January 2020, Renfro filed a petition for resentencing under section 1170.18 (Proposition 47) requesting resentencing for both convictions. The trial court denied the petition by written order finding that the felony convictions in this case are not eligible for relief under section 1170.18. Renfro 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 Renfro the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.2 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 of the record, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel offers a request in lieu of listing a possible, but not arguable issue. Counsel asks: “Appellant requests that this Court review appellant’s petition for resentencing (Penal Code section 1170.18, subd. (f) to determine whether the trial court erred in denying it.” 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 Renfro on this appeal.
2 Any issues that might arise from the denial of the resentencing petition in this case are issues of law, not involving the facts of the underlying offenses. Therefore, we will omit the traditional statement of facts. 2 DISPOSITION The order denying Renfro’s petition for resentencing under section 1170.18 is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
IRION, J.
DO, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12