People v. Parson CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from an order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Bernardino County · No. FVA1101104
- Trial judge
- Steven A. Mapes
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Buchanan, Julia C. Kelety
Analysis
The trial court denied Parson's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 because he was not convicted of a homicide offense. The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial, finding no error after an independent review of the record.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6“Counsel stipulated Parson was not eligible for relief under section 1172.6 since he was not charged with or convicted of any of the offenses for which resentencing might be authorized. The court denied the petition.” | de novo | correct | agree with court The appellate court affirmed the denial, noting that Parson was not convicted of a homicide offense, which is a prerequisite for relief under section 1172.6. The court found no error in the trial court's application of the statute to the facts. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Establishes the procedure for appointed appellate counsel to file a brief identifying no arguable issues and requesting independent review of the record.
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appellate courts to independently review the record for error when appointed counsel identifies no arguable issues.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to file a brief identifying any potentially meritorious issues and request leave to withdraw.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the Delgadillo/Wende framework for independent review when counsel finds no issues. It correctly identifies that the underlying conviction (assault with a deadly weapon) does not fall within the scope of section 1172.6, which applies to homicide offenses.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe San Bernardino Superior Court denied Terrance Parson's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 (former section 1170.95) because his 2011 conviction was for assault with a deadly weapon under section 245, not a homicide offense covered by the statute, and his appointed counsel stipulated to ineligibility. On appeal, counsel filed a Delgadillo no-issue brief, Parson filed a supplemental brief raising no argument on the merits, and the Court of Appeal exercised its discretion to independently review the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 on the ground that defendant was not convicted of any qualifying homicide offense“Counsel stipulated Parson was not eligible for relief under section 1172.6 since he was not charged with or convicted of any of the offenses for which resentencing might be authorized. The court denied the petition.” | unclear | correct | agree with court Section 1172.6 provides relief only to persons convicted of murder, attempted murder, or manslaughter under felony-murder, natural-and-probable-consequences, or similar imputed-malice theories. A conviction for assault with a deadly weapon under section 245 falls categorically outside the statute, so the trial court was required to deny the petition as a matter of law; counsel's stipulation and the court's ruling were plainly correct, and the appellate court's independent review reasonably found no arguable issue. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — In an appeal from the denial of a section 1172.6 petition where counsel finds no arguable issues, the Court of Appeal need not conduct Wende review but must evaluate any supplemental brief filed by the defendant and may, in its discretion, independently review the record.
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Establishes the procedure for independent appellate review of the record when appointed counsel finds no arguable issues in a criminal defendant's first appeal of right.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous should file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
The appellate opinion: sound — The court correctly followed the Delgadillo framework by considering the defendant's supplemental brief, exercising its discretion to review the record, and affirming where the defendant's section 245 conviction categorically falls outside section 1172.6. The opinion is brief and does not expressly state the standard of review or cite the statutory text, but the result is compelled by the plain terms of the statute and no argument was left unanswered.
Opinion
Filed 5/15/23 P. v. Parson 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, D081366
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. FVA1101104)
TERRANCE PARSON,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, Steven A. Mapes, Judge. Affirmed. Terrance Parson, in pro. per.; and Marcia R. Clark, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2011, Terrance Parson was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon (knife) (Pen. Code,1 § 245, subd. (a)(1)). He was found to have suffered two strike prior convictions (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)). Parson was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 25 years to life in prison.
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. In 2022, Parson filed a petition for resentencing under section 1170.95 (now renumbered section 1172.6) although Parson was not convicted of any homicide offense within the meaning of section 1172.6. The court appointed counsel and held a hearing. Counsel stipulated Parson was not eligible for relief under section 1172.6 since he was not charged with or convicted of any of the offenses for which resentencing might be authorized. The court denied the petition. Parson filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo), indicating counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to exercise its discretion to independently review the record for error as we would in a review under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We notified Parson that he could file his own brief on appeal. He has filed a supplemental brief, which we will discuss later in this opinion. The facts of the underlying offense are not relevant to our analysis of the legal issues in this appeal. We will not include a summary of the facts of the offense in this opinion. DISCUSSION As we have noted, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Delgadillo and asks the court to exercise its discretion to independently review the record for error. To assist the court in its review, and consistent 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 appeal: Whether the court erred in finding Parson ineligible for resentencing because his conviction was for a violation of section 245.
2 In his supplemental brief, Parson does not explain why a conviction for a non-homicide offense should be eligible for resentencing under section 1172.6. Instead, Parson advises he has asked appellate counsel to file new motions under two different sets of legislative changes. Parson has not identified any potentially meritorious issues for reversal of the order on this appeal. We have independently reviewed the record for error in the same manner as under Wende. We have not discovered any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Parson on this appeal. DISPOSITION The order denying Parson’s petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
BUCHANAN, J.
KELETY, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Delgadillo S266305 · 2022-12-19
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12