People v. Crowder CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D077981 · 2021-04-06 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from an order
Trial court: Superior Court of Riverside County · No. RIF1602244
Trial judge: Mac R. Fisher
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Judith D. McConnell, Joan K. Irion

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T05:11Z · confidence low

The trial court denied the defendant's motion to strike serious felony priors and a firearm enhancement under newly enacted statutes, reinstating the original sentence. The Court of Appeal affirmed the order, finding no arguable issues for reversal after a Wende/Anders review.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of motion to strike serious felony priors (Pen. Code, § 667, subd. (a)(1)) and firearm enhancement (Pen. Code, § 12022.5, subd. (a)) “The court declined to exercise its new discretion to strike the priors or the firearms enhancement. The court reinstated the original sentence.”	abuse of discretion	not reached	unsure The appellate court conducted a Wende/Anders review and stated it did not discover any arguable issues for reversal, thereby affirming the trial court's exercise of discretion without providing specific legal analysis or reasoning for why the trial court's decision was correct.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to review the record for error and file a brief identifying arguable issues or explaining why none exist.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires independent review of the record by the appellate court when counsel files a no-merit brief.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court relied on the Wende and Anders mandates to conduct an independent review of the record. It concluded that no arguable issues for reversal were found, leading to an affirmance without addressing the specific legal merits of the trial court's discretion.

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

On remand after Senate Bill Nos. 620 and 1393 gave trial courts discretion to strike firearm enhancements and serious felony priors, the Riverside Superior Court considered the facts of the offense, the prior sentence, and Crowder's prison record, declined to strike the two section 667, subdivision (a)(1) priors or the section 12022.5 enhancement, and reinstated the 39-years-to-life sentence. Appellate counsel filed a Wende brief, Crowder filed nothing, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial on remand of motion to strike two serious felony prior convictions (Pen. Code, § 667, subd. (a)(1)) and the firearm enhancement (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)) under the discretion conferred by Senate Bill Nos. 620 and 1393 “After the review, the trial court declined to exercise its new discretion to strike the priors or the firearms enhancement.”	abuse of discretion	correct	agree with court The opinion recites that the trial court held a hearing, considered the facts of the offense, the prior sentence, and Crowder's prison record before declining to strike. That is the kind of individualized consideration the sentencing discretion statutes contemplate, and nothing in the opinion suggests the court misunderstood its discretion or relied on improper factors. Under Wende and Anders the appellate court was required to review the whole record and did so; with counsel unable to identify an arguable issue and the defendant filing nothing, affirmance follows. The opinion does not quote the trial court's reasons, so the conclusion rests on the appellate court's representation of its independent review rather than on a record the reader can test.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel files a brief raising no arguable issues, the Court of Appeal must independently review the entire record for arguable error.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous must so advise the court and furnish a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal; here counsel identified the abuse-of-discretion question as a possible issue.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the Wende/Anders procedure correctly: it identifies the possible issue counsel flagged, states that the court reviewed the entire record, and affirms after finding no arguable issue, which is the proper disposition when neither counsel nor defendant presents a claim. It is, however, skeletal: it does not describe the trial court's stated reasons or explain why the refusal to strike was within the court's discretion, and it incorporates the facts by reference to a prior unpublished opinion, leaving the reader unable to verify the conclusion.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 4/6/21 P. v. Crowder 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, D077981

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. RIF1602244)

CHAUNCEY CROWDER,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Mac R. Fisher, Judge. Affirmed. Lizabeth Weis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2017, a jury convicted Chauncey Crowder of voluntary manslaughter (Pen. Code, § 192, subd. (a)) as a lesser included offense of murder. The jury found true an allegation that he personally discharged a firearm during the crime (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)). Crowder admitted two serious felony prior convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)) and two strikes (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)). The court denied Crowder’s motion to strike the “strike” priors and sentenced Crowder to an indeterminate term of 39 years to life. Crowder appealed and in March 2019, this court affirmed the conviction in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Crowder (Mar. 19, 2019, D074884) [nonpub. opn.].) During the pendency of the appeal, the Legislature passed Senate Bill No. 620 which permits the trial court to strike firearm enhancements. The Legislature also passed Senate Bill No. 1393 which permits trial courts to strike the serious felony priors. In our prior opinion, we held that Crowder was entitled to request the trial court to exercise its newly enacted discretion to strike the priors and the enhancement. Accordingly, we remanded the case to the trial court to permit the court to exercise its discretion. On remand, the trial court conducted a hearing on Crowder’s motions. The court considered the facts of the offense and the prior sentence. The court also reviewed Crowder’s prison record. After the review, the trial court declined to exercise its new discretion to strike the priors or the firearms enhancement. The court reinstated the original sentence. Crowder 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 Crowder the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal but, he has not responded.

2 STATEMENT OF FACTS The facts of the offense are fully set forth in our prior opinion. 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 in its review, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Did the trial court abuse its discretion in declining to strike Crowder’s serious felony priors (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)) and firearm enhancement (§ 12022.5, subd. (a))? 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 Crowder on this appeal.

3 DISPOSITION The order denying Crowder’s motion to strike the serious felony priors and the firearm enhancement is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

IRION, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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