People v. Green CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from an order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Bernardino County · No. FWV700893
- Trial judge
- Mary E. Fuller (retired judge)
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Joan K. Irion, Buchanan
Analysis
The trial court denied Green's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 because he was the actual killer, a fact he admitted. The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial, finding no arguable issues on appeal as Green's supplemental brief challenged his underlying conviction rather than the resentencing decision.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6“Given the undisputed fact Green was the actual killer, the trial court determined Green was not eligible for resentencing under section 1172.6.” | de novo | correct | agree with court The appellate court affirmed the denial because the petitioner admitted to being the actual killer, which renders him ineligible for relief under the statute. The court further noted that the petitioner's supplemental brief failed to challenge the resentencing decision itself, instead raising issues regarding the underlying conviction that had already been adjudicated in a prior appeal. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Delgadillo (2023) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Establishes the procedure for reviewing appeals where appointed counsel cannot identify arguable issues, requiring the court to review the record and any supplemental brief filed by the defendant.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the Delgadillo framework to review the record and the defendant's supplemental brief. It correctly identifies that the defendant's arguments regarding self-defense and superseding cause were not challenges to the resentencing petition but rather to the underlying conviction, which was previously affirmed.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court denied Green's Penal Code section 1172.6 resentencing petition because it was undisputed that Green was the actual killer, making him ineligible for relief. On appeal under the People v. Delgadillo procedure, the Court of Appeal considered Green's supplemental brief, found it attacked only his original conviction rather than the petition's denial, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of section 1172.6 petition for resentencing on the ground that Green was the actual killer and therefore ineligible“Given the undisputed fact Green was the actual killer, the trial court determined Green was not eligible for resentencing under section 1172.6.” | unclear | correct | agree with court Section 1172.6 relief is available only to defendants convicted under felony murder, natural and probable consequences, or other theories imputing malice; an actual killer who concedes that status cannot make a prima facie showing. Green admitted he was the killer in his petition and did not challenge the denial on appeal, so the denial was correct as a matter of law. |
Rejection of Green's supplemental-brief claims attacking his original conviction (self-defense and superseding cause of death) as not cognizable in a section 1172.6 appeal“We dealt with Green’s challenges to his conviction in our prior appeal and upheld the conviction. Nothing in Green’s supplemental brief raises an arguable issue for reversal on appeal.” | de novo | correct | agree with court A section 1172.6 petition is not a vehicle to relitigate trial errors or the sufficiency of evidence supporting the original conviction, and the claims were already resolved in the prior direct appeal. The court properly treated these contentions as outside the scope of the appeal from the petition's denial. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Delgadillo (2023) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Establishes the procedure for appeals from denial of section 1172.6 petitions when appointed counsel finds no arguable issues: the appellate court must evaluate any supplemental brief the defendant files but need not conduct independent Wende review.
The appellate opinion: sound — The court correctly applied Delgadillo by addressing the supplemental brief on its merits and correctly concluded that an admitted actual killer is ineligible for section 1172.6 relief and that the brief's challenges to the underlying conviction are not cognizable on this appeal. It is a short opinion that does not cite the statutory text or Supreme Court authority such as People v. Lewis on the prima facie standard, but no such authority would change the result given Green's concession.
Opinion
Filed 3/3/23 P. v. Green 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, D080718
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. FWV700893)
LANCE WILLIAM GREEN,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, Mary E. Fuller, Judge. (Retired Judge of San Bernardino Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed. Lance William Green in pro. per.; and Kevin D. Sheehy, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2008, a jury convicted Lance William Green of second degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) and found he personally used a deadly weapon (a knife) in the commission of the offense. Green was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 16 years to life in prison. Green appealed and this court affirmed the judgment. (People v. Green (Oct. 5, 2010, D057210) [nonpub. opn.].) In 2022, Green filed a petition for resentencing under section 1170.95 (now renumbered section 1172.6). The court appointed counsel, received briefing, and held a hearing on the petition. At the hearing, counsel noted Green was the actual killer. Green acknowledges he was the killer in his petition for resentencing. Given the undisputed fact Green was the actual killer, the trial court determined Green was not eligible for resentencing under section 1172.6. Green filed a notice of appeal from the denial of his petition. Appellate counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal and has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2023) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). Counsel advised Green and the court that counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues and that Green has the right to submit a supplemental brief. We advised Green that his appeal would be dismissed if he failed to submit a brief. Green has responded with a supplemental letter brief. DISCUSSION This appeal is from the denial of a postjudgment petition for resentencing is being reviewed in accordance with the procedure established by our Supreme Court in Delgadillo. Accordingly, we address the merits of the supplemental brief. We note Green does not actually challenge the substance of the trial court’s denial of his petition. He acknowledges he was the actual killer. No claim has been presented to the effect Green was an aider or abettor or that he was convicted on a theory of felony murder or natural and probable consequences arising from aiding and abetting.
2 Green’s supplemental brief does not address the merits of the resentencing petition or the trial court’s decision on the merits. Rather, Green challenges his original conviction. He claims his conviction was unlawful since he was acting in self-defense when he stabbed the victim. He further argues inadequate medical care provided to the victim was a superseding cause of death. We dealt with Green’s challenges to his conviction in our prior appeal and upheld the conviction. Nothing in Green’s supplemental brief raises an arguable issue for reversal on appeal. Green has been represented by competent counsel on this appeal. DISPOSITION The order denying Green’s petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
IRION, J.
BUCHANAN, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Delgadillo S266305 · 2022-12-19