People v. Gonzalez CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D078276 · 2021-08-17 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from an order
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD190887
Trial judge: Melinda J. Lasater
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Judith L. Haller, Patricia Guerrero

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T05:03Z · confidence low

The trial court denied Gonzalez's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95, finding that the record demonstrated he was the actual shooter and thus failed to state a prima facie case for relief. The Court of Appeal affirmed the order, conducting a Wende/Anders review of the record and finding no arguable issues for reversal.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95 “The court found the record demonstrated Gonzalez was the actual shooter and thus did not state a prima facie case for relief under section 1170.95. The court denied the petition.”	unclear	not reached	agree with court The appellate court did not explicitly state a standard of review for the trial court's denial. Instead, it conducted an independent review of the entire record pursuant to People v. Wende and Anders v. California, concluding that no arguable issues for reversal were found. The court effectively affirmed the trial court's determination that Gonzalez was the actual shooter, thereby failing to meet the prima facie threshold for relief under section 1170.95.

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 independently review the record.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to file a brief identifying potentially meritorious issues while arguing for affirmance, allowing the court to review the record.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound in its application of the Wende/Anders framework, correctly identifying the duty to review the record when counsel finds no arguable issues. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' opinion because it provides no substantive legal analysis or citation to specific authorities supporting the conclusion that the record demonstrates Gonzalez was the actual shooter, relying entirely on the prior unpublished opinion and the trial court's finding without independent verification in the text.

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

The trial court denied Gonzalez's Penal Code section 1170.95 resentencing petition at the prima facie stage after appointing counsel and reviewing the record of conviction, finding the record showed he was the actual shooter in a murder for which the jury also found true a personal-discharge-causing-death enhancement. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief, Gonzalez 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 section 1170.95 petition at the prima facie stage on the ground that the record of conviction showed Gonzalez was the actual shooter “The court found the record demonstrated Gonzalez was the actual shooter and thus did not state a prima facie case for relief under section 1170.95.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The jury found true a section 12022.53, subdivision (d) allegation that Gonzalez personally discharged a firearm causing death, which is a jury finding (not judicial factfinding) establishing he was the actual killer and thus ineligible under section 189, subdivision (e)(1) regardless of whether felony murder or natural and probable consequences was argued. Counsel was appointed and briefing received before denial, so the procedure is consistent with People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, which permits consideration of the record of conviction at the prima facie stage; the opinion does not cite Lewis or explain the basis for the actual-shooter conclusion, but the result follows from the verdict as described.
Conduct of independent Wende/Anders review of a postconviction appeal from denial of a section 1170.95 petition “We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.”	unclear	correct	agree with court At the time, Courts of Appeal were divided on whether Wende review is required in appeals from postjudgment orders, but the court here gave Gonzalez the more protective full independent review, offered him the chance to file his own brief, and counsel identified Anders issues. Whatever the correct procedure, providing full review could not prejudice the appellant, and the identified issues (prima facie showing, sufficiency of actual-shooter evidence, constitutionality) have no apparent merit on this 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 error.
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.
missed: People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952 — At the section 1170.95 prima facie stage, after appointing counsel and receiving briefing, the trial court may consider the record of conviction, including a prior appellate opinion, to determine ineligibility as a matter of law, but may not engage in factfinding or weigh evidence.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The result is correct because the jury's true finding on the personal-discharge-causing-death enhancement establishes Gonzalez was the actual killer and ineligible for section 1170.95 relief, and counsel was appointed before denial. The opinion, however, is a bare Wende affirmance that does not cite the then-recent and controlling People v. Lewis or explain why reliance on the record of conviction and prior opinion was proper at the prima facie stage.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 8/17/21 P. v. Gonzalez 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, D078276

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD190887)

ALDO ALEJANDRO GONZALEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Melinda J. Lasater, Judge. Affirmed. Russell S. Babcock, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2008, a jury convicted Aldo Alejandro Gonzalez of first degree murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187, subd. (a)). The jury also found true an allegation that Gonzalez personally discharged a firearm causing death or great bodily 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. injury (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). Gonzalez was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 50 years to life for the murder and the firearm enhancement. Gonzalez appealed and this court affirmed the judgment in an unpublished opinion filed November 17, 2009. (People v. Gonzalez (Nov. 17, 2009, D052827) [nonpub. opn.].) In 2019, Gonzalez filed a form petition for resentencing under section 1170.95 contending he was convicted of murder on a felony murder theory or a natural and probable consequences theory. The trial court appointed counsel and received briefing. The court considered the record of conviction, including this court’s prior opinion. The court found the record demonstrated Gonzalez was the actual shooter and thus did not state a prima facie case for relief under section 1170.95. The court denied the petition. Gonzalez 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 Gonzalez the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal. After multiple requests for extensions of time, Gonzales failed to file a supplemental brief. 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 2 has identified the following possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: 1. Did Gonzalez state a valid prima facie case for relief under section 1170.95? 2. Do any of the numerous cases under section 1170.95 that are currently on review before the California Supreme Court provide a basis for relief for Gonzalez? 3. Is section 1170.95 unconstitutional? 4. Was there sufficient evidence that Gonzalez was the shooter? 5. Was there any substantial evidence that Gonzalez was convicted under a theory of aiding and abetting or the natural and probable consequences doctrine? 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 Gonzalez on this appeal.

3 DISPOSITION The order denying Gonzalez’s petition for resentencing under section 1170.95 is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

HALLER, J.

GUERRERO, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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