People v. Santana CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from an order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of Riverside County · No. RIF139207
- Trial judge
- Walter H. Kubelun
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), O'Rourke, Joan K. Irion
Analysis
The trial court summarily denied Santana's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, determining he had not been convicted of a qualifying offense. The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial, finding no arguable issues for reversal after a Wende/Anders review.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Summary denial of petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6“The superior court summarily denied the petition because Santana had not been convicted of any crimes that qualify for relief under the statute.” | de novo | correct | agree with court The appellate court affirmed the denial because the record established that Santana's convictions (attempted mayhem and assault with a firearm) did not constitute a felony murder or murder conviction, which are the only offenses eligible for relief under section 1172.6. The court correctly applied the statute's plain language to the undisputed facts of the prior convictions. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to review the record for arguable issues when they cannot identify any, and requires 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 in an appeal where no arguable issues exist, requiring a brief identifying potential issues and a court review.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly identifies the lack of jurisdiction for relief under section 1172.6 based on the nature of the underlying convictions. It properly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for handling appeals where counsel finds no arguable issues.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe Riverside County Superior Court summarily denied Serafin Santana's Penal Code section 1172.6 resentencing petition because his 2009 convictions for attempted mayhem and assault with a firearm are not offenses eligible for relief under the statute. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief, Santana filed a supplemental brief attacking the trial court's jurisdiction over his original trial, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Summary denial of section 1172.6 petition for resentencing on the ground that defendant's convictions (attempted mayhem and assault with a firearm) are not offenses eligible for relief“The superior court summarily denied the petition because Santana had not been convicted of any crimes that qualify for relief under the statute.” | unclear | correct | agree with court Section 1172.6 applies only to persons convicted of murder, attempted murder, or manslaughter under felony-murder, natural-and-probable-consequences, or similar imputed-malice theories. Santana was convicted of attempted mayhem and assault with a firearm with enhancements; none is a qualifying offense, so the petition fails at the prima facie stage as a matter of law and the superior court properly denied it without an evidentiary hearing. The appellate court did not articulate a standard of review, but eligibility on the face of the record of conviction is a legal question and the result is correct under any standard. Santana's supplemental brief attacking the jurisdiction of the trial court over his original 2009 trial is outside the scope of a 1172.6 appeal and was properly treated as raising no arguable issue. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed counsel finds no arguable issues, the appellate court independently reviews 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.
- missed: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Wende/Anders procedures do not apply to appeals from the denial of a section 1172.6 petition; when the defendant files a supplemental brief the court must evaluate the specific arguments raised, and it may in its discretion conduct an independent review of the record. Decided two days before this opinion and not cited, though the court's actual course (considering the supplemental brief and reviewing the record) satisfies Delgadillo.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The result is plainly right: attempted mayhem and assault with a firearm are not offenses covered by section 1172.6, and Santana's supplemental brief did not contest that point. The opinion, however, applies the Wende framework without acknowledging People v. Delgadillo (decided two days earlier) or other authority holding Wende inapplicable to postconviction appeals, and it does not cite the statutory text or state a standard of review, leaving the analysis thin even if the outcome is unaffected.
Opinion
Filed 12/21/22 P. v. Santana 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, D080845
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. RIF139207)
SERAFIN SANTANA,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Walter H. Kubelun, Judge. Affirmed. Serafin Santana, in pro. per.; and Siri Shetty, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2009, a jury convicted Serafin Santana of attempted mayhem (Pen.
Code,1 §§ 203 & 664) and assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)) and found true allegations of intentional use of a firearm causing great bodily injury (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)) and personal use of a firearm (§ 12022.5, 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. subd. (a)). The jury also found true an allegation that Santana personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). The court sentenced Santana to an indeterminate term of 29 years four months to life in prison. Santana appealed and this court affirmed the judgment in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Santana (Sept. 11, 2013, D059013).)2 In 2022, Santana filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. The superior court summarily denied the petition because Santana had not been convicted of any crimes that qualify for relief under the statute. Santana 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 Santana the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal. He has responded with a lengthy document challenging his original conviction. He contends the superior court did not have jurisdiction to conduct the trial. Santana does not address the undisputed fact he has not been convicted of any offense that is eligible for relief under section 1172.6. He has not raised any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.
DISCUSSION3 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 and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this 2 We grant defense counsel’s request to take judicial notice of our records in case No. D059013.
2 appeal: Whether the trial court erred by denying the petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. We have reviewed the record for error as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Santana on this appeal. DISPOSITION The order denying Santana’s petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
O’ROURKE, J.
IRION, J.
3 The facts of the offenses are addressed in our prior opinion. We will not repeat them here. 3
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12