People v. Knight CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from an order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. CR46053
- Trial judge
- Howard H. Shore
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), O'Rourke, Patricia D. Benke
Analysis
The trial court denied Clarence Knight's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95, determining he was the actual killer and thus not eligible for relief. The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial, finding no arguable issues for reversal after reviewing the record under Wende/Anders standards.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95“The court denied the petition by written order.” | de novo | correct | agree with court The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial, finding that Knight was the actual killer and therefore statutorily ineligible for relief under section 1170.95. The court relied on the prior published opinion affirming the conviction, which established that Knight shot and killed the victim and confessed. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Knight (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 201 — Established that Knight shot and killed the victim and confessed, supporting the finding that he was the actual killer.
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Mandates independent review of the record by appointed appellate counsel when no arguable issues are identified.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to identify arguable issues or file a no-merit brief, followed by independent court review.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound in applying Wende/Anders review to a post-conviction petition denial, though it is brief and relies heavily on the prior published opinion for factual findings. The court correctly identifies that the appeal is from the resentencing petition, not the original trial, and that the prior conviction's validity is not at issue.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court denied Clarence Knight's Penal Code section 1170.95 resentencing petition at the prima facie stage after reviewing the briefing, the record of conviction, and the Court of Appeal's 1980 published opinion, concluding Knight was the actual killer and therefore ineligible. On appeal, counsel filed a Wende brief, Knight filed a supplemental brief asserting his trial confession was false, 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 of eligibility because the record of conviction showed Knight was the actual killer“The record is straightforward and demonstrates that Knight, as the actual killer, is statutorily ineligible for relief under section 1170.95.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The court conducted a Wende independent review rather than articulating a conventional standard. On the record described (a first degree murder conviction, a jury finding of personal firearm use, a confession, and a prior published opinion reciting that Knight shot and killed the victim), the conclusion that Knight was the actual killer and thus outside the class eligible under section 1170.95 is supported. Knight's supplemental argument that his confession was false is a collateral attack on the facts of the 1979 conviction, not a basis for relief under the statute, and the opinion correctly so held. The opinion does not discuss whether reliance on the prior appellate opinion's factual recitation at the prima facie stage involved impermissible factfinding, but given the confession and firearm finding, the result is defensible. |
Appellate counsel's noncompliance with Anders by failing to identify issues considered, treated as nonprejudicial“Although counsel has failed to comply with Anders, there has been no prejudice to Knight and our review of the record has not been hindered.” | unclear | harmless error (procedure) | agree with court The court noted that counsel's Wende brief did not list the issues counsel considered, as Anders contemplates, but found no prejudice because the court conducted its own full record review. This is consistent with the purpose of Anders/Wende review, which is to ensure the appellate court examines the record for arguable issues; the court did so and found none. |
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.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous should file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, and the court must then conduct its own examination of the record.
- relied: People v. Knight (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 201 — Prior published opinion affirming Knight's 1979 first degree murder conviction and reciting that Knight shot and killed the victim and confessed; used as part of the record of conviction to establish he was the actual killer.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion reaches a defensible result: a defendant who was the actual killer is categorically ineligible under section 1170.95, and Knight's attempt to relitigate the truth of his confession is not cognizable in this proceeding. It is thin, however, in that it does not articulate a standard of review, does not address whether relying on the prior opinion's factual summary at the prima facie stage was proper under then-existing Court of Appeal authority, and expressly sidesteps the question whether Wende review applies to appeals from postconviction orders.
Opinion
Filed 4/2/21 P. v. Knight 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, D077877
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. CR46053)
CLARENCE KNIGHT,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Howard H. Shore, Judge. Affirmed. Clarence Knight, in pro. per.; and Alex Coolman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 1979, a jury convicted Clarence Knight of first degree murder (Pen.
Code,1 § 187). The jury also found Knight personally used a firearm in the commission of the offense. Knight was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 25 years to life, consecutive to various other convictions.
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. Knight appealed his conviction and this court affirmed in a published opinion filed October 17, 1980. (People v. Knight (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 201 (Knight).) In 2019, Knight filed a pro. per. petition for resentencing under section 1170.95. The court appointed counsel and obtained briefing from the parties. After considering the briefing, the record of conviction, and the prior opinion of this court, the trial court determined Knight was the actual killer and thus, had not demonstrated prima facie showing of eligibility under section 1170.95. The court denied the petition by written order. Knights 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 Knight the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal. Knight has responded with a supplemental brief. We will discuss his brief below. STATEMENT OF FACTS The facts of the 1979 crime are set forth in our prior opinion. The opinion recites that Knight shot and killed the victim and confessed. (Knight, supra, 111 Cal.App.3d 201.) We will not repeat the facts here. DISCUSSION As we have noted appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to review the record for error. Counsel has not identified the possible issues that were considered in evaluating the merits of this appeal. To that extent, counsel has not complied with the mandate of Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders). Counsel does argue the Wende procedure should be used to process no merit appeals from denial of 2 postconviction petitions such as in this case. Since we are applying Wende standards to this review we do not need to address the arguments concerning the applicability of the Wende process. Although counsel has failed to comply with Anders, there has been no prejudice to Knight and our review of the record has not been hindered. The record is straightforward and demonstrates that Knight, as the actual killer, is statutorily ineligible for relief under section 1170.95. Knight submitted a supplemental letter brief. In that brief, Knight discusses the facts of his 1979 trial. He recites some of the facts from his perspective. He acknowledges he confessed to being the killer, but it was not true. Knight was protecting the codefendant. He argues that under his version of the facts a jury could not convict him as the actual killer should there be another trial. This appeal is not from the trial and we have already affirmed the conviction in our prior opinion. Nothing on Knight’s submission raises 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 Knight on this appeal.
3 DISPOSITION The order denying appellant’s petition for resentencing under section 1170.95 is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.
WE CONCUR:
BENKE, Acting P. J.
O'ROURKE, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Knight Crim. 11432 · 1980-10-17
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12