People v. Thompson CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D079336 · 2022-07-14 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from an order
Trial court: Superior Court of Imperial County · No. JCF12948
Trial judge: Poli Flores, Jr.
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: delinquency
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Cynthia Aaron, William S. Dato

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:48Z · confidence low

The trial court denied Thompson's 2020 motion for resentencing and a Franklin hearing. The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende and finding no arguable issues for reversal.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of motion for resentencing and Franklin hearing “The order denying Thompson’s motion for resentencing is affirmed.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The appellate court did not apply a specific standard of review to the merits of the resentencing motion because it was operating under a Wende/Anders protocol. The court stated it reviewed the entire record and found no arguable issues for reversal, effectively bypassing a substantive legal analysis of the trial court's decision on the merits.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to review the record for arguable issues when no issues are identified, and the court to conduct an independent review.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to withdraw from representation when an appeal is frivolous, requiring a brief identifying potential issues and court review.
relied: People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261 — Provides opportunities for certain youthful offenders to prepare a record for future parole consideration.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound in its adherence to Wende and Anders requirements for reviewing a record when counsel identifies no issues. However, it is substantively thin as it does not address the specific legal merits of the resentencing motion or the Franklin hearing request, relying solely on the absence of 'arguable issues' identified by counsel and the court's own review.

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 Imperial County Superior Court denied Travis Ray Thompson's 2020 motion for resentencing (filed together with a request for a Franklin hearing) on his 2003 convictions for assault by a prisoner, possession of a weapon by a prisoner, and assault with a deadly weapon, for which he was serving 25 years to life plus five years. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief, Thompson filed a supplemental brief attacking his trial counsel and the 2003 proceedings, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed the order.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of Thompson's motion for resentencing (including the trial court's refusal to treat the motion as a cognizable request for resentencing) “Did the trial court err in refusing to consider Thompson’s motion as a request for resentencing?”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion identifies the Anders issue but never states the statutory basis of the motion, the trial court's reasons for denial, or any standard of review; it simply reports that independent Wende review disclosed no arguable issue. Nothing in the opinion shows a legal error, but the record quoted is too thin to independently verify that the denial was correct, so I cannot agree or disagree with confidence.
Rejection of Thompson's supplemental-brief claims of ineffective and corrupt trial counsel and corrupt correctional officers at the 2003 trial “Thomson’s allegations about the 2003 trial, the circumstances around his convictions do not raise arguable issues for reversal of this order on appeal.”	de novo	correct	agree with court Complaints about the conduct of the 2003 trial and the performance of trial counsel at that time go to the long-final judgment of conviction, which this court already affirmed in 2005, and are not cognizable in an appeal from a post-judgment order denying resentencing. The court's conclusion that these allegations present no arguable issue is consistent with settled limits on the scope of an appeal from a post-judgment order.

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 in a first appeal of right.
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.
relied: People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261 — Certain youthful offenders are entitled to an opportunity to make a record of youth-related mitigating information for use at a future youth offender parole hearing.
missed: People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496 — Wende/Anders independent review is constitutionally required only in a first appeal of right from a judgment of conviction, not in appeals from post-judgment orders; in such appeals, if the defendant files no supplemental brief the appeal may be dismissed as abandoned, and if he does, the court addresses only the issues raised.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The result is defensible: Thompson's supplemental brief raised only attacks on his 2003 trial that cannot support reversal of a post-judgment resentencing order, and the court conducted a full independent record review, which exceeds what Serrano holds is required in this posture. The opinion, however, never identifies the statutory basis for the resentencing motion, the trial court's reasons for denying it, or what became of the Franklin hearing request, and it does not address whether Wende review was even applicable to this post-judgment appeal.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 7/14/22 P. v. Thompson 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, D079336

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. JCF12948)

TRAVIS RAY THOMPSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Imperial County, Poli Flores, Jr., Judge. Affirmed. Travis Ray Thompson, in pro. per.; and Nancy J. King, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2003, Travis Ray Thompson was an inmate in a state prison in Imperial County. He was convicted of assault by a prisoner (Pen. Code,1 § 4501) and possession of a weapon by a prisoner (§ 4502, subd. (a)).

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. In a separate case, Thompson was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)). There were true findings on one serious felony prior conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)) and two strike priors (§ 667,subds. (b)-(i)). Thompson was sentenced to 25 years to life plus five years in prison. Thompson appealed his convictions, and this court affirmed the convictions in two unpublished opinions. (People v. Thompson (Jan. 26, 2005, D042750); People v. Thompson (Aug. 12, 2005, D044829).)

In 2020, Thompson filed a motion for resentencing and for a Franklin2 hearing. The trial court appointed counsel and later granted Thompson’s request for self-representation. The court appointed advisory-counsel to assist Thompson. After hearings on the motion, the trial court denied the motion for resentencing. Thompson 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 Thompson the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal. Thompson has responded by filing a supplemental brief. We will discuss his submission below.3 2 People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261, provides opportunities for certain youthful offenders to prepare a record for future parole consideration.

3 The facts of the 2003 offenses are set forth in our two prior opinions. There is no need to repeat them here. 2 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 issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Did the trial court err in refusing to consider Thompson’s motion as a request for resentencing? In his supplemental brief, Thompson complains about the assistance he received in the trial court and on appeal. He says the attorney in the trial court was ineffective for not developing a better record, counsel was both ineffective and corrupt. The correctional officers were corrupt at the trial. Thomson’s allegations about the 2003 trial, the circumstances around his convictions do not raise arguable issues for reversal of this order 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 Thompson on this appeal.

3 DISPOSITION The order denying Thompson’s motion for resentencing is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

AARON, J.

DATO, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Franklin S217699 · 2016-05-26
People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12