People v. Peart CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D081408 · 2023-06-28 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from an order
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD130683
Trial judge: Lisa R. Rodriguez
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Judith D. McConnell, Michele M. Castillo

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:33Z · confidence low

The trial court resentenced the defendant to 25 years to life after striking prison priors and denying a Romero motion to strike a strike prior. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, finding no arguable issues for reversal after an independent review of the record.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of the motion to strike at least one of the 'strike' priors as to count 1 under People v. Superior Court (Romero). “Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to strike at least one of the “strike” priors as to count 1.”	abuse of discretion	not reached	unsure The appellate court identified the issue as a potential candidate for review but concluded, after independent review of the record, that it did not raise an arguable issue for reversal. The opinion does not provide specific reasoning for why the trial court's exercise of discretion was correct, only that no error was found.
Consideration of materials (described by appellant as old and inaccurate) during the resentencing hearing. “Based on our review of the record, Peart’s complaints do not raise any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The court rejected the appellant's argument that the trial court improperly considered outdated or inaccurate information, stating that the complaint did not raise an arguable issue for reversal. The opinion does not specify the legal standard applied to the admissibility or weight of the materials.

Authorities

relied: People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 — Establishes the standard for striking a prior serious or violent felony conviction under the Three Strikes Law.
relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appellate counsel to file a brief identifying arguable issues and mandates independent review of the record by the court.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires independent review of the record by the appellate court when counsel files a no-merit brief.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound in following Wende and Anders mandates for independent review. However, it is substantively thin, as it identifies a specific legal issue (Romero discretion) but fails to explain why the trial court's decision was correct, relying solely on the conclusion that no arguable issues were found.

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

On a 2022 resentencing petition under Senate Bill No. 483 (Pen. Code, § 1172.75) and Proposition 47, the trial court struck Peart's two prison priors, held count 2 could no longer be sentenced as a third strike, denied his Romero motion to strike a prior strike, and reduced his 52-years-to-life term to 25 years to life plus four years. Appointed counsel filed a Wende brief, Peart filed a supplemental brief complaining that the materials the trial court considered were old and inaccurate, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of Peart's Romero motion to strike at least one prior strike conviction as to count 1 at the section 1172.75 resentencing “The court denied the motion under People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497.”	abuse of discretion	correct	unsure Counsel framed the only potential issue as whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the Romero motion, and the Court of Appeal, after Wende/Anders review, found no arguable issue. The opinion recites no facts about Peart's criminal history, the nature of the strikes, or the trial court's reasons, so the reader cannot independently test whether the denial fell within the bounds of discretion; nothing in the opinion, however, shows a legal error, and the trial court did grant substantial relief (striking prison priors and removing third-strike treatment from count 2), suggesting an individualized exercise of discretion.
Trial court's consideration of allegedly old and inaccurate materials in ruling on the resentencing petition (Peart's supplemental-brief contention) “Based on our review of the record, Peart’s complaints do not raise any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.”	unclear	correct	unsure The appellate court addressed the supplemental brief, as required when a defendant files one, but disposed of it in a single sentence without describing the materials, how they were used, or why age or alleged inaccuracy did not matter. A sentencing court may consider the defendant's record and prior conduct at a Romero hearing, and a general complaint that information is old does not itself show error, so the result is defensible, 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 entire record for arguable error.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal frivolous may so advise the court but should identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
relied: People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 — A trial court has discretion under Penal Code section 1385 to strike a prior strike conviction allegation in furtherance of justice.
missed: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Wende/Anders independent-review procedures are not constitutionally compelled in appeals from postjudgment resentencing-type orders; the court must evaluate arguments in a defendant's supplemental brief and may, but need not, conduct independent review of the record.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court followed Wende and Anders, considered counsel's identified issue and Peart's supplemental brief, and reached a defensible affirmance; nothing in the opinion suggests a misreading of the law. It does not, however, address whether Wende review was actually mandated in this postjudgment resentencing appeal in light of People v. Delgadillo, and it disposes of both the Romero issue and Peart's supplemental contention without stating any facts or reasons, so the opinion cannot be fully verified from its face.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 6/28/23 P. v. Peart 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, D081408

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD130683)

ANDRE PEART,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Lisa R. Rodriguez, Judge. Affirmed. Andre Peart, in pro. per.; and Mary Woodward Wells, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 1997, Andre Peart pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code,1 § 12021, subd. (a)(1); count 1); unlawful taking of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851; count 2); and receiving stolen property (§ 496; count 3).

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. Peart admitted two prison priors (§ 667.5, subd. (b)) and two strike priors (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)). The court sentenced Peart to a total term of 52 years to life based on the admission of two prior strikes. Peart appealed and this court affirmed the judgment in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Peart (Feb. 11, 1999, D031048).) In 2022, Peart petitioned for resentencing under Proposition 47 and Senate Bill No. 483. The court conducted a resentencing hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court struck the two prison priors pursuant to section 1172.75. The court also found count 2 could no longer be sentenced as a third strike offense. The court denied the motion under People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497. The court reduced the sentenced to 25 years to life for count 1 plus four years for count 2. Peart 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 independently review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Peart the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal. Peart has responded by filing a supplemental brief. We will discuss his submission later in this opinion. This appeal does not raise any issues about the facts of the offenses to which Peart has pleaded guilty. Accordingly, we will omit a statement of facts. DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to independently review the record for error. To assist the court in its review, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 2 (Anders), counsel has identified a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to strike at least one of the “strike” priors as to count 1. In his supplemental brief, Peart makes a general complaint about the materials considered by the trial court in ruling on the petition for resentencing. He argues the information is old and inaccurate and should not have been considered. Based on our review of the record, Peart’s complaints do not raise any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. We have reviewed the record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Peart on this appeal. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

CASTILLO, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Superior Court (Romero) S045097 · 1996-06-20
People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12