People v. Sanchez CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D080189 · 2022-06-17 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from an order
Trial court: Superior Court of Riverside County · No. INF051951
Trial judge: John D. Molloy
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Joan K. Irion, William S. Dato

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:49Z · confidence high

The trial court denied Sanchez's second petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95, finding the petition repetitive and that Sanchez was the actual killer. The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, finding no arguable issues for reversal.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of second petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95 “The court found the petition repetitive and reiterated the finding Sanchez was the actual killer and therefore not eligible for resentencing.”	de novo	correct	agree with court The appellate court affirmed the denial, noting that Sanchez was found to be the actual killer, which renders him ineligible for resentencing under the statute. The court also noted the petition was repetitive of a previously denied petition.
Denial of petition as barred by the successive petition rule “Did the court err in denying the petition for being barred as a successive petition?”	de novo	correct	agree with court The court identified this as a potential issue in the Wende brief but ultimately found no arguable issues for reversal after reviewing the record. The trial court's finding that the petition was repetitive supports the application of the successive petition bar.
Denial of petition on the merits (failure to make prima facie case) “Sanchez argues the trial court should have issued an order to show cause since, as he contends, he made prima facie showing for resentencing.”	de novo	correct	agree with court The court reviewed the record and found no arguable issues for reversal, effectively upholding the trial court's determination that Sanchez did not make a prima facie case for relief, largely because he was the actual killer.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appellate counsel to file a brief identifying potential 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 — Requires counsel to file a brief identifying potential issues and the court to conduct an independent review of the record when counsel finds no arguable issues.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the Wende/Anders framework for reviewing appeals where counsel finds no arguable issues. It relies on the prior finding that Sanchez was the actual killer, which is a dispositive factor for eligibility under section 1170.95.

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 Riverside County Superior Court denied Joel Elias Sanchez's second Penal Code section 1170.95 petition, finding it repetitive of his previously denied petition and reiterating that the record showed he was the actual killer (the jury found he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing death, and was not instructed on natural and probable consequences or felony murder), so he was ineligible for resentencing. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief, Sanchez filed a supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal, after independently reviewing the record under Wende and Anders, found no arguable issues and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of second section 1170.95 petition on the ground that Sanchez was the actual killer and therefore ineligible for resentencing as a matter of law “The court found the petition repetitive and reiterated the finding Sanchez was the actual killer and therefore not eligible for resentencing.”	unclear	correct	agree with court A jury convicted Sanchez of second degree murder with a true finding that he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing death, and the jury was not instructed on natural and probable consequences or felony murder. Under People v. Lewis the court may consult the record of conviction at the prima facie stage, and a petitioner convicted as the actual killer on a malice theory cannot show he could not presently be convicted under amended sections 188 and 189. The result is correct, though the opinion cites no section 1170.95 authority and does not expressly analyze the merits.
Denial of the petition as a barred successive petition “2. Did the court err in denying the petition for being barred as a successive petition?”	unclear	correct	agree with court Published authority (People v. Farfan) holds that successive 1170.95 petitions are not categorically barred, particularly after intervening changes in law such as Lewis. The appellate court did not address this, but any error in treating the petition as barred is harmless because the court independently found Sanchez ineligible as the actual killer, a ground the prior appeal had already affirmed. The result is defensible on the independent ground even if the successive-petition rationale was imperfect.
Conducting the prima facie hearing without Sanchez's personal (or video) presence “1. Was Sanchez entitled to be personally present at the hearing to determine whether he had made a prima facie case for relief?”	unclear	correct	agree with court The prima facie stage under section 1170.95 is a legal determination from the record of conviction at which counsel represented Sanchez; the opinion does not analyze presence rights, but because Sanchez was ineligible as a matter of law on the record, any absence could not have affected the outcome. The opinion's silence on the issue is a gap, but the conclusion that no arguable issue exists is defensible.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel finds no arguable issues, the Court of Appeal independently reviews the entire record for error.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds no meritorious issues may identify possible issues to assist the court's independent review.
missed: People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952 — At the section 1170.95 prima facie stage the court may rely on the record of conviction, including jury instructions and findings, to deny a petition where the petitioner is ineligible as a matter of law, but may not engage in factfinding; Lewis supports the result here but was not cited.
missed: People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496 — Wende independent review is not constitutionally required in appeals from postjudgment orders; the court applied Wende review to a 1170.95 appeal without addressing whether that procedure was required (the issue was later resolved by the Supreme Court in People v. Delgadillo, decided after this opinion).

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The affirmance is correct because the jury's findings that Sanchez personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing death, with no felony-murder or natural-and-probable-consequences instructions, make him ineligible for section 1170.95 relief as a matter of law, and that ground had already been affirmed on his first petition. The opinion, however, cites no section 1170.95 authority (Lewis, Farfan), does not separately resolve the successive-petition or personal-presence questions it lists, and does not engage with Sanchez's supplemental-brief arguments beyond noting many rely on matters outside the record.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 6/17/22 P. v. Sanchez 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, D080189

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. INF051951)

JOEL ELIAS SANCHEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Riverside County, John D. Molloy, Judge. Affirmed. Joel Elias Sanchez, in pro. per.; and David P. Lampkin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. This is an appeal from the denial of a second petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95. PROCEDUAL BACKGROUND In July 2010, a jury convicted Joel Elias Sanchez of second degree murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187, subd. (a)) and found Sanchez personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing death (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). Sanchez was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 40 years to life in prison. Sanchez appealed and this court affirmed the judgment in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Sanchez (June 4, 2012, D060315).) In 2019, Sanchez filed his first petition for resentencing under section 1170.95. After appointment of counsel and a hearing, the court found the record demonstrated Sanchez was the actual killer and that the jury was not instructed on natural and probable consequences or felony murder. Sanchez appealed and this court affirmed the order denying his petition. (People v. Sanchez (July 1, 2020, D077326) [nonpub. opn.].) In February 2022, Sanchez filed another petition for resentencing under section 1170.95. After the appointment of counsel and a hearing, the court again denied the petition. The court found the petition repetitive and reiterated the finding Sanchez was the actual killer and therefore not eligible for resentencing. Sanchez again appealed. 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 Sanchez the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal. Sanchez has filed a supplemental brief which we will discuss below.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 STATEMENT OF FACTS The facts of the underlying offenses are set forth in our original opinion filed in 2012. (People v. Sanchez, supra, D060315.) 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 the following possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: 1. Was Sanchez entitled to be personally present at the hearing to determine whether he had made a prima facie case for relief? 2. Did the court err in denying the petition for being barred as a successive petition? 3. Did the court err in denying Sanchez’s petition? In his supplemental brief, Sanchez includes discussion of communications with counsel about his desire to attend the hearing by video. He complains that his counsel did not raise issues that he thinks are important. Much of his brief is based on matters outside the record on this appeal. Sanchez argues the trial court should have issued an order to show cause since, as he contends, he made prima facie showing for resentencing. 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 Sanchez on this appeal.

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

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

IRION, J.

DATO, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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