People v. Edinbyrd CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of Riverside County · No. RIF1311514
- Trial judge
- Charles J. Koosed
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Joan K. Irion, William S. Dato
Analysis
The trial court denied Edinbyrd's motion to strike firearm enhancements and conducted a Franklin hearing, resulting in the reinstatement of his original judgment. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, finding no arguable issues for reversal after a Wende review of the record.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of motion to strike firearm enhancements“Did the trial court abuse its discretion in refusing to strike the firearm enhancements?” | abuse of discretion | not reached | agree with court The court explicitly stated that the appeal was from the Franklin hearing and that there was no record on which to act regarding the resentencing or the failure to seek relief from the failure to file a timely notice of appeal from the September 2020 hearings. The court noted that the appropriate remedy, if any, is a petition for habeas corpus, effectively declining to review the merits of the enhancement ruling on this appeal. |
Failure to advise of appellate rights and failure to act on appeal letter“There is no record on which we can act regarding the resentencing or the failure to seek relief from the failure to file a timely notice of appeal. The appropriate remedy, if any, is a petition for habeas corpus.” | unclear | not reached | agree with court The court identified these as potential issues raised by counsel but declined to address them on the merits because the appeal was limited to the Franklin hearing and the necessary record for the prior proceedings was not before the court. The court directed the appellant to habeas corpus for relief regarding the missed appeal. |
Ineffective assistance of counsel“We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal based on the record before us. Competent counsel has represented Edinbyrd on this appeal.” | unclear | not reached | agree with court The court reviewed the record pursuant to Wende and Anders and concluded that no arguable issues for reversal were found. The court affirmed the judgment based on the lack of arguable issues in the record before it, rather than conducting a detailed Strickland analysis for the specific claims of ineffective assistance raised in the brief. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261 — Establishes the procedure for a hearing to determine if a juvenile offender is fit for juvenile court jurisdiction after a conviction in adult court.
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to review the record for arguable issues when they find none, and the court must independently review the record.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to withdraw from a criminal appeal when no arguable issues exist, requiring a brief identifying potential issues and court review.
- relied: People v. Mendoza Tello (1997) 15 Cal.4th 264 — Indicates that habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy for claims involving the failure to file a timely notice of appeal or related procedural defaults not addressed in the direct appeal record.
- relied: Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 — Establishes the requirement for police to inform suspects of their rights before custodial interrogation.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound in its application of Wende and Anders, correctly identifying that the direct appeal is limited to the Franklin hearing and that issues regarding the prior sentencing and missed appeal require collateral relief. However, it is somewhat abrupt in dismissing the ineffective assistance and enhancement claims without detailed analysis, relying heavily on the lack of a record for those specific proceedings.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionAfter a conditional reversal and remand, the trial court denied Edinbyrd's motion to strike firearm enhancements, reinstated the original 95-years-to-life judgment, and later conducted a Franklin hearing; Edinbyrd timely appealed only from the Franklin hearing. Appellate counsel filed a Wende brief, the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues in the postjudgment order on appeal, declined to reach the unappealed September 2020 resentencing (noting habeas as the remedy), and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Conduct of the February 2021 Franklin hearing (the postjudgment order from which the notice of appeal was timely filed), reviewed under Wende/Anders independent review“We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal based on the record before us.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The court followed the Wende/Anders procedure, listed counsel's possible issues, invited and addressed the defendant's supplemental brief (which raised only trial-phase Miranda issues outside the scope of a postjudgment appeal), and found nothing arguable. Nothing in the opinion suggests a defect in the Franklin proceeding itself, and the defendant's contentions did not concern it. |
Denial of motion to strike firearm enhancements and reinstatement of the original judgment at the September 25, 2020 hearing, together with the trial court's inaction on Edinbyrd's letter expressing a desire to appeal“There is no record on which we can act regarding the resentencing or the failure to seek relief from the failure to file a timely notice of appeal. The appropriate remedy, if any, is a petition for habeas corpus.” | unclear | not reached | agree with court No notice of appeal was filed from the reinstated judgment, so the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction over the September 2020 orders; this appeal was only from the Franklin hearing. The court correctly identified habeas corpus as the vehicle for claims of ineffective assistance in failing to perfect an appeal and for constructive-filing arguments based on the defendant's letter, which depend on facts outside the appellate record. |
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 frivolous should file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, and the court must then examine the record.
- relied: People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261 — A juvenile offender sentenced to a lengthy term is entitled to a hearing to make a record of youth-related mitigating information for a future youth offender parole hearing.
- relied: People v. Mendoza Tello (1997) 15 Cal.4th 264 — Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel that depend on facts outside the appellate record are more appropriately raised by petition for writ of habeas corpus than on direct appeal.
The appellate opinion: sound — The court properly confined itself to the order actually appealed, conducted the Wende/Anders review, addressed the pro se supplemental brief, and correctly pointed the defendant to habeas for the unappealed resentencing and the failure to file a notice of appeal. It did not discuss whether Wende review is even required for a postjudgment appeal from a Franklin hearing, but conducting the review anyway did not prejudice the defendant and the result is sound.
Opinion
Filed 8/5/21 P. v. Edinbyrd 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, D078743
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. RIF1311514)
ROBERT GENE EDINBYRD,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Charles J. Koosed, Judge. Affirmed. Robert Gene Edinbyrd, in pro. per.; and David P. Lampkin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2015, a jury convicted Robert Gene Edinbyrd of three counts of premeditated attempted murder (Pen. Code,1 §§ 187, subd. (a) and 664). The jury also found true a gang enhancement (§ 186.22, subd. (b)) and a firearm enhancement (§ 12022.53, subds. (c), (d)). Edinbyrd, who was 16 years old at 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. the time of the offense, was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 95 years to life in prison. Edinbyrd appealed, and this court issued a conditional reversal of the convictions, pending remand for three purposes. First, the case was remanded to permit Edinbyrd to pursue a transfer to juvenile court in light of the passage of Proposition 57, the Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016, while his case was pending appeal. Second, remand was necessary for Edinbyrd to have a “Franklin”2 hearing if the case was not transferred to juvenile court. Third, it was remanded to permit Edinbyrd the opportunity to file a motion to strike the firearm enhancements. Depending on the outcome, the trial court would be required to amend the abstract of judgment. (People v. Walker et al. (Aug. 31, 2018, D073712) [nonpub. opn.].) On remand the juvenile court determined Edinbyrd was not fit for juvenile court and returned the case to the criminal court. The trial court denied the defense motion to strike the firearm enhancements and reinstated the original judgment Edinbyrd did not file a notice of appeal from the reinstated judgment. He did send a letter to the court indicating he wished to appeal, but the court did not act upon the letter, which was not reviewed due to the COVID-19 shutdown. In February 2021, the court conducted a Franklin hearing. There were further communications from Edinbyrd to the trial court about his desire to appeal the judgment. The material was sent to defense counsel. The record does not contain any efforts by counsel to file a late notice of appeal from the reinstated judgment. A notice of appeal from the Franklin hearing was timely filed.
2 People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261 (Franklin). 2 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 Edinbyrd the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal. Edinbyrd has responded by filing a supplemental brief. We will discuss his submission below. STATEMENT OF FACTS The facts of the offenses are fully set forth in our prior opinion. Given the proceedings which are the subject of this appeal, 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. 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: 1. Did the court err at the September 25, 2020 hearing when the court declined to exercise its discretion to strike the firearm enhancements and failed to advise Edinbyrd of his appellate rights?3 2. Should the trial court have taken action on Edinbyrd’s letter regarding his desire to appeal?
3 This appeal is from the February 2021 Franklin hearing. No efforts were made by the defense in the trial court to remedy the failure to appeal from the September 2020 hearings. There is no record on which we can act regarding the resentencing or the failure to seek relief from the failure to file a timely notice of appeal. The appropriate remedy, if any, is a petition for habeas corpus. (People v. Mendoza Tello (1997) 15 Cal.4th 264.) 3 3. Did defense counsel provide ineffective assistance of counsel when he failed to file a timely notice of appeal from the September hearings? 4. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in refusing to strike the firearm enhancements? 5. Did defense counsel provide ineffective assistance of counsel at the Franklin hearing? Edinbyrd filed a supplemental brief. The primary subject of the brief is a discussion of the fact that he was a child at the time of the offense. He discusses his difficult childhood and the circumstances of his youth that led to his current situation. He asks this court for some form of help, although it is unclear what the court could do to help him. Edinbyrd complains about the admission of his statements at trial and his failure to understand his Miranda4 rights. He also complains that current appellate counsel has not challenged the trial court’s admission of his statements at trial. He does not address the fact that this appeal is from postjudgment orders and not an at- large review of the history of his case. Edinbyrd’s supplemental brief does not raise any arguable issues for reversal in this appeal. We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal based on the record before us. Competent counsel has represented Edinbyrd on this appeal.
4 Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436. 4 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
IRION, J.
DATO, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Franklin S217699 · 2016-05-26
- People v. Mendoza Tello S055184 · 1997-04-17
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12