People v. Sams CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D080416 · 2022-12-15 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from an order
Trial court: Superior Court of Riverside County · No. RIF1601743
Trial judge: John D. Molloy
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), O'Rourke, Truc T. Do

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:41Z · confidence high

The trial court denied Sams's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d), and subsequently denied his motion for reconsideration. The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial, finding no arguable issues for reversal after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d) “The court denied the petition. Sams filed a motion for reconsideration citing Assembly Bill Nos. 124 and 2169 which was also denied.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The appellate court conducted an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende and found no arguable issues for reversal. The court noted that Sams's supplemental brief raised non-meritorious arguments regarding witness credibility and counsel competence, which do not constitute arguable issues on appeal from a resentencing denial.
Denial of motion for reconsideration “Sams filed a motion for reconsideration citing Assembly Bill Nos. 124 and 2169 which was also denied.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The appellate court affirmed the underlying order, which encompasses the denial of the motion for reconsideration. The court's independent review found no error in the trial court's handling of the petition or the subsequent motion.

Authorities

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

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the Wende/Anders framework for reviewing an appeal where counsel finds no arguable issues. The court explicitly states it reviewed the entire record and considered the appellant's supplemental brief, finding no merit to the arguments raised.

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 Sams's March 2022 petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d), and denied his motion for reconsideration invoking Assembly Bill Nos. 124 and 2169. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief, Sams filed a supplemental brief, 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 Sams's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d) “The court denied the petition.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The opinion does not state the trial court's grounds or apply any articulated standard; it simply conducts Wende review and finds no arguable issue. The result is defensible because, under the recall statute as construed in Loper and Chlad, a defendant has no right to initiate recall on his own motion, so denial of a defendant-initiated petition is not error, but the opinion never explains this and never addresses whether the order was even appealable.
Denial of motion for reconsideration based on Assembly Bill Nos. 124 and 2169, including the claim the court failed to rule on that aspect of the motion “Sams has not raised any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.”	unclear	correct	agree with court Counsel flagged as an Anders issue whether the court erred by not ruling on the AB 124/2169 aspect of the motion, and the appellate court concluded there was no arguable issue without explaining why. Because the judgment was final after the 2018 appeal and the new ameliorative sentencing provisions do not confer a freestanding right on a defendant to demand resentencing outside an authorized recall, the conclusion appears right, but the opinion gives no reasoning that can be checked.

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 record for error.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal frivolous should identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal to assist the court's review.
missed: People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496 — Wende independent review procedures are constitutionally required only in a first appeal of right from a conviction, not in appeals from postconviction orders; the court should have addressed whether Wende review applied to this appeal from a postconviction order.
missed: People v. Loper (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1155 — A defendant may appeal an order denying a recall of sentence initiated by an authorized entity under former section 1170(d), but a trial court is not required to act on a defendant's own request for recall and an order denying such a request does not affect the defendant's substantial rights; bears on appealability of this defendant-initiated petition.
missed: People v. Chlad (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1719 — An order denying a defendant's own motion to recall sentence under former section 1170(d) is not an appealable order because the defendant has no standing to invoke the statute.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court properly discharged its Wende/Anders obligations, considered the supplemental brief, and reached a result that is correct because a defendant cannot compel resentencing by his own petition under the recall statute. It skipped the threshold questions of whether Wende review applies to postconviction appeals (Serrano) and whether the order was appealable at all (Loper, Chlad), and gave no substantive reasoning on the AB 124/2169 claim counsel flagged.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 12/15/22 P. v. Sams 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, D080416

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. RIF1601743)

JAMES PLAS SAMS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Riverside County, John D. Molloy, Judge. Affirmed. James Plas Sams, in pro. per.; and Marilee Marshall, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. A jury convicted James Plas Sams of corporal injury of a spouse (Pen.

Code,1 § 273.5, subd. (a)) and assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)). He admitted two serious felony priors (§ 667, subd. (a)) and two 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. strike priors under section 667, subdivisions (b)-(i). The court struck one of the strike priors and imposed an 18-year prison sentence. Sams appealed his conviction, and this court affirmed the conviction in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Sams (July 10, 2018, D073709).)2 We affirmed the convictions but struck one of the serious felony priors, thus reducing the prison sentence to 13 years. In March 2022, Sams filed a petition for resentencing under section 1170, subdivision (d). The court denied the petition. Sams filed a motion for reconsideration citing Assembly Bill Nos. 124 and 2169 which was also denied. Sams 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 Sams the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal. He has responded by filing a supplemental brief, which we will discuss below. We will not include a statement of facts in this opinion. Our previous opinion discusses the facts extensively. There is no need to 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 issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Whether the court prejudicially erred 2 We have granted appellate counsel’s request to take judicial notice of our records in case No. D073709. 2 under Assembly Bill Nos. 124 and 2169 when it failed to rule on that aspect of Sams’s motion. Sams has filed a supplemental brief. In his brief, he disputes the credibility of the prosecution witnesses at trial. He contends his appellate counsel is incompetent and should be relieved. Sams states although the trial court judge was presented with the law regarding resentencing, the court either did not understand it or chose to ignore it. We have reviewed the record and carefully considered the supplemental brief. Sams has not raised any arguable issues for reversal 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 Sams on this appeal. DISPOSITION The order denying Sams’s petition for resentencing is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

O’ROURKE, J.

DO, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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