People v. Jimenez CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D080844 · 2022-11-15 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from an order
Trial court: Superior Court of San Bernardino County · No. FVA018285
Trial judge: Mary E. Fuller (retired judge)
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Cynthia Aaron, Truc T. Do

Analysis

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

The trial court denied Jimenez's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 (formerly 1170.95) without issuing an order to show cause, finding he failed to make a prima facie showing. The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial in an unpublished opinion following a Wende/Anders review.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 without issuance of an order to show cause. “The Court finds that the petitioner has not met his requirements under 1170.95. [¶] And I will deny the request for an order to show cause hearing.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The appellate court affirmed the order but did not provide substantive reasoning regarding the trial court's application of the law or the sufficiency of the record. The opinion states only that the court reviewed the record and found no arguable issues for reversal, effectively adopting the trial court's conclusion without independent analysis.

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 by the defendant.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires counsel to file a brief identifying any arguable issues and to request leave to withdraw after the court reviews the record.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound in its adherence to Wende and Anders requirements for appointed counsel. However, it is substantively hollow as it fails to address the specific legal standard for prima facie eligibility under section 1172.6 or analyze the record to support the trial court's denial.

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 Victor Manuel Jimenez's Penal Code section 1172.6 (former 1170.95) resentencing petition at the prima facie stage without issuing an order to show cause, relying on the information and jury instructions from his 2007 first degree murder conviction. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief, Jimenez 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 1172.6 resentencing petition at the prima facie stage without issuing an order to show cause “The Court finds that the petitioner has not met his requirements under 1170.95. [¶] And I will deny the request for an order to show cause hearing.”	unclear	correct	agree with court Under People v. Lewis the trial court may consult the record of conviction, including jury instructions, at the prima facie stage so long as it does not engage in factfinding. Counsel represented that the jury was instructed on no aiding-and-abetting, felony-murder, or natural-and-probable-consequences theory, and the jury found Jimenez personally used a deadly weapon, so he was necessarily convicted as the actual killer and is ineligible for relief as a matter of law. The trial court's phrasing that it was the petitioner's 'responsibility to present sufficient information' overstates the petitioner's burden at the prima facie stage, but the result does not depend on that misstatement because the record conclusively refutes eligibility. The appellate opinion does not itself describe the instructions or cite Lewis, so I cannot fully verify the record, but nothing in the opinion suggests error.

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 record for error.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Counsel filing a no-issue brief should identify potential issues considered to assist the court's independent review.
missed: People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952 — At the section 1172.6 prima facie stage the court may consider the record of conviction, including jury instructions, but must take the petition's allegations as true and may deny only if the record conclusively refutes eligibility; it may not engage in factfinding or weigh evidence.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion reaches a defensible result because a petitioner convicted of first degree murder with no instructions on any imputed-malice theory is ineligible for section 1172.6 relief as a matter of law, and conducting Wende review was within the court's discretion before Delgadillo was decided. It skips, however, any statement of the governing prima facie standard under Lewis and relies on counsel's footnote representation rather than its own description of the jury instructions, and it does not address the trial court's arguably inverted statement of the petitioner's burden.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 11/15/22 P. v. Jimenez 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, D080844

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. FVA018285)

VICTOR MANUEL JIMENEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, Mary E. Fuller, Judge. (Retired Judge of the San Bernardino Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed. Mark D. Johnson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2007, Victor Manuel Jimenez was convicted of first degree murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187, subd. (a)). The jury also found Jimenez used a deadly 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. weapon in the commission of the offense. The court sentenced Jimenez to an indeterminate term of 26 years to life. Jimenez appealed and this court affirmed the judgment in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Jimenez (Oct. 6, 2009, D055122).) In 2022, Jimenez filed a petition for resentencing under section 1170.95 (now renumbered 1172.6). The court appointed counsel for Jimenez, received briefing, reviewed the record of conviction and held a hearing. At the hearing the court said: “It is the Petitioner’s responsibility to present sufficient information in his petition to show that he could not be presently convicted of murder or attempted murder because of the changes in the law. [¶] The Court, while I cannot make any factual determinations as to the underlying facts of the case, based on the court’s record, the Information that was filed, and the jury instructions that were given, The Court finds that the petitioner has not met his requirements under 1170.95. [¶] And I will deny the request for an order to show cause hearing.”

The court denied the petition for resentencing without issuing an order to show cause. Jimenez 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 facts for error as mandated by Wende.2 We offered Jimenez the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. The facts of the 2 Counsel represents that he has examined the record of conviction and there were no jury instructions on aiding and abetting, felony murder or liability based on the natural and probable consequences theory. 2 underlying offense are 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 has identified the possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this case: Whether the trial court erred in denying the petition for resentencing without issuing an order to show cause. 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 Jimenez on this appeal. DISPOSITION The order denying Jimenez’s petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

AARON, J.

DO, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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