People v. Sumpter CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D080794 · 2022-11-04 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from an order
Trial court: Superior Court of Riverside County · No. INF1303258
Trial judge: Judith C. Clark
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Judith D. McConnell, Truc T. Do

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:42Z · confidence low

The trial court summarily denied Sumpter's petition for resentencing under former Penal Code section 1170.95 (now 1172.6) at the prima facie stage. The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to Wende and Anders, finding no arguable issues for reversal.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Order summarily denying petition for resentencing under former Penal Code section 1170.95 (now 1172.6) “We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.”	de novo	correct	agree with court agree with court

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to conduct an independent review of the record for error when no arguable issues are identified.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to file a brief identifying any arguable issues and to request the court to review the record for error.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the Wende/Anders framework for reviewing a summary denial of a resentencing petition where counsel identifies no arguable issues. The court explicitly states it reviewed the entire record and found no error, which satisfies the procedural requirements for affirming such an order.

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 summarily denied, at the prima facie stage, William Sumpter's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 (former section 1170.95) following his 2015 jury conviction for premeditated attempted murder with personal firearm use and great bodily injury findings. On appeal, counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief, the Court of Appeal took judicial notice of its prior opinion and the trial jury instructions and verdicts, independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Summary denial of the section 1172.6 resentencing petition at the prima facie stage “Did the trial court prejudicially err by denying the petition at the prima facie stage?”	unclear	correct	agree with court The jury found Sumpter guilty of premeditated attempted murder and found that he personally used a firearm and personally inflicted great bodily injury, which strongly indicates he was the actual perpetrator who acted with intent to kill, making him ineligible for relief under section 1172.6. The court took judicial notice of the jury instructions and verdicts, suggesting it confirmed the record refutes eligibility, but it never states what instructions were given (e.g., whether natural and probable consequences or aiding and abetting theories were presented) or cites People v. Lewis on the prima facie standard, so the reasoning cannot be fully verified from the opinion.
Rejection of defendant's supplemental brief arguments re-raising direct-appeal claims, claimed jury intent to convict of a lesser offense, and sentencing error “We have reviewed his supplemental brief, but do not find it raises any arguable issues for reversal of the July 22, 2022 order denying his section 1172.6 petition on this record.”	unclear	correct	agree with court A section 1172.6 petition is not a vehicle to relitigate issues rejected on direct appeal or to attack the original sentence; such arguments fall outside the statute's scope and the appellate court was correct that they present no arguable issue for reversal of the order denying the petition.

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 an appeal frivolous may file a brief identifying anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, and the court then reviews the record.
missed: People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952 — At the prima facie stage of a section 1172.6 petition, the court must appoint counsel, take briefing, accept the petitioner's allegations as true, and may deny only if the record of conviction conclusively refutes eligibility; it may not engage in factfinding.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The result is defensible because the jury's personal-firearm-use and great-bodily-injury findings on a premeditated attempted murder conviction indicate Sumpter was the direct perpetrator acting with intent to kill, which categorically forecloses section 1172.6 relief. But the opinion never articulates why the record of conviction conclusively refutes eligibility, does not cite People v. Lewis or state the governing standard, and does not address the then-existing split (e.g., People v. Cole and People v. Serrano) on whether Wende review applies to postconviction appeals, though applying Wende review was more protective of the defendant and caused him no prejudice.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 11/4/22 P. v. Sumpter 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, D080794

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. INF1303258)

WILLIAM OLIVER SUMPTER JR., Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Judith C. Clark, Judge. Affirmed.

Defendant William Oliver Sumpter Jr. appeals an order summarily denying his petition for resentencing under former Penal Code1 section 1170.95.2 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 Former section 1170.95 was renumbered as section 1172.6 without substantive change on June 30, 2022. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) Consistent with that change, we hereafter refer to that statute as section 1172.6. In October 2015, a jury found Sumpter guilty of attempted murder with premeditation and deliberation (§§ 664, 187, subd. (a)) and found true allegations that in committing that offense he inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (b)) and personally used a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)). In December 2015, the trial court sentenced Sumpter to a term of seven years to life in prison for his attempted murder offense, a consecutive term of five years for the section 12022.7, subdivision (b) enhancement, and a consecutive term of four years for the section 12022.5 enhancement. In his appeal challenging his conviction, we affirmed the judgment. (People v. Sumpter (Feb. 22, 2018, D073118) [nonpub. opn.] (Sumpter I).) On April 21, 2022, Sumpter filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. The court then appointed counsel to represent Sumpter. On July 22, the court summarily denied his petition. Sumpter timely filed a notice of appeal, challenging the order denying his section 1172.6 petition. On September 8, 2022, Sumpter filed a request that we take judicial notice of our opinion in Sumpter I, as well as the jury instructions and verdict forms from his trial record.3 Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), indicating that counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal of the order denying the section 1172.6 petition. Counsel requests the court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. To assist the court in its review, and in compliance 3 On October 3, 2022, we issued an order stating that we would consider Sumpter’s request for judicial notice concurrently with his appeal. We now grant his request and take judicial notice of our opinion in Sumpter I and the jury instructions and jury verdicts from his trial record. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (d)(1), 459, subd. (a).) with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has submitted a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the merits of this appeal: Did the trial court prejudicially err by denying the petition at the prima facie stage? We offered Sumpter the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal and he has submitted a supplemental brief. In his supplemental brief, Sumpter reasserts arguments that he made, and we rejected, in Sumpter I. He also argues that the jury actually intended to convict him of a lesser offense and that the trial court erred in sentencing him. We have reviewed his supplemental brief, but do not find it raises any arguable issues for reversal of the July 22, 2022 order denying his section 1172.6 petition on this record. 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 Sumpter on this appeal. DISPOSITION The order denying Sumpter’s petition for resentencing under now renumbered section 1172.6 is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J. WE CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

DO, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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