People v. Zendejas CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D077759 · 2021-03-29 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from an order
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD220281
Trial judge: Joan P. Weber
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, 2026-10-13T05:11Z · confidence low

The trial court denied Anthony Zendejas's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95. The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of petition for resentencing under Penal Code 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.”	de novo	correct	agree with court agree with court

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appellate counsel to file a brief identifying arguable issues and the court to conduct an independent review of the record when counsel finds no arguable issues.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to withdraw from an appeal when no arguable issues exist, requiring a brief and independent court review.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the Wende/Anders framework for reviewing an appeal where counsel identifies no arguable issues. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' opinion because it fails to provide any substantive legal analysis or reasoning for why the trial court's denial of the section 1170.95 petition was correct, relying solely on the negative finding of no arguable issues.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:30Z · confidence low

The trial court, after appointing counsel and receiving briefing, reviewed the record of conviction and denied by written order Zendejas's Penal Code section 1170.95 petition for resentencing on his pleaded convictions for premeditated first degree murder and second degree murder with personal firearm use. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief, Zendejas 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 the section 1170.95 petition as to count 1 (premeditated first degree murder) without issuing an order to show cause “Regarding count 1, the magistrate found Zendejas was a direct aider and abettor who intended the victim should be killed.”	unclear	correct	unsure A direct aider and abettor who acts with intent to kill remains liable for murder after the amendments to sections 188 and 189, so a petitioner in that posture cannot show he could not be convicted under current law. The opinion, however, does not explain whether the trial court permissibly relied on the magistrate's preliminary hearing findings at the prima facie stage rather than engaging in factfinding, an issue on which published authority (e.g., Drayton) counseled caution; the Wende format left this question unaddressed, so the result is defensible but the reasoning is thin.
Denial of the section 1170.95 petition as to count 2 (second degree murder with personal firearm use) without issuing an order to show cause “Regarding count 2, the magistrate found Zendejas was the actual killer of the victim.”	unclear	correct	agree with court Zendejas admitted personal use of a firearm in the second degree murder and the stipulated factual basis showed he was the actual killer; an actual killer is ineligible for relief under section 1170.95 as a matter of law because the felony-murder and natural-and-probable-consequences amendments do not affect liability of the person who actually killed. On this record, denial at the prima facie stage was proper.

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 in a defendant's first appeal of right.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous may so advise the court but must file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
missed: People v. Flores (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 266 — Although Wende review is not constitutionally required in a section 1170.95 appeal, the Court of Appeal retains discretion to independently review the record in the interests of justice.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The affirmance is defensible because the record of conviction shows Zendejas was the actual killer on count 2 and a direct aider and abettor with intent to kill on count 1, which makes him ineligible under section 1170.95 as a matter of law. The opinion nonetheless skips the threshold question counsel itself raised—whether Wende review applies to a postjudgment 1170.95 appeal (Cole, Flores)—and offers no analysis of the trial court's reasoning or of the propriety of relying on magistrate findings at the prima facie stage (Drayton).

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 3/29/21 P. v. Zendejas 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, D077759

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD220281)

ANTHONY ZENDEJAS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Joan P. Weber, Judge. Affirmed. Christopher Nalls, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In June 2010, Anthony Zendejas entered into a plea agreement. Under the terms of that agreement, Zendejas pleaded guilty to one count of premeditated first degree murder and one count of second degree murder (Pen. Code,1 §§ 187, subd. (a), 189). Zendejas admitted personal use of a 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. firearm during the second degree murder (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)). The parties agreed the transcript of the preliminary hearing would serve as the factual basis for the plea and stipulated to a term of 44 years to life for the offenses. Zendejas was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement. In January 2019, Zendejas filed a pro. per. petition for resentencing under section 1170.95. The court appointed counsel and received briefing. Following review of the record of conviction, the court denied the petition by written order. Zendejas 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 a mandated by Wende. We offered Zendejas the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. STATEMENT OF FACTS Zendejas pleaded guilty to both counts 1 and 2. As to both counts, the parties stipulated to the transcript of the preliminary hearing as the factual basis for the plea. In count 1, Zendejas admitted he committed premeditated first degree murder. Regarding count 1, the magistrate found Zendejas was a direct aider and abettor who intended the victim should be killed. Regarding count 2, the magistrate found Zendejas was the actual killer of the victim. 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 has identified the following possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal:

2 1. Did the trial court err in failing to issue an order to show cause for the conviction in count 1; 2. Did the trial court err in failing to issue an order to show cause for the conviction in count 2; and 3. If the protections of Anders and Wende do not apply, should the court conduct an independent review of the record in the interests of justice? 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 Zendejas on this appeal. DISPOSITION The order denying appellant'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