People v. Fontenot CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D081367 · 2023-07-18 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from an order
Trial court: Superior Court of San Bernardino County · No. FBA1100269
Trial judge: Lisa M. Rogan
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), O'Rourke, Laurence D. Rubin

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:32Z · confidence low

The trial court denied Fontenot's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, finding he was ineligible for relief as a matter of law because the record demonstrated he was the actual killer. The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, finding no meritorious issues.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 “The trial court found the record demonstrated Fontenot was the actual killer in both cases. Thus, the court found Fontenot was not eligible for relief under the statute as a matter of law.”	de novo	correct	agree with court The appellate court affirmed the trial court's determination that the defendant was ineligible for resentencing because the record established he was the actual killer, a prerequisite for relief under section 1172.6. The court conducted an independent review of the record and found no error in the trial court's legal conclusion.
Denial of petition without prosecutor's written response “Did the trial court err in denying the petition for resentencing since the prosecutor did not file a written response to the petition?”	de novo	correct	agree with court The court identified the lack of a written response as a potential issue but, after independent review, found it did not constitute reversible error. The absence of a response does not automatically mandate relief if the record supports the denial.
Denial of petition without citing specific record sections “Did the court err in denying the petition without citing to specific sections of the record supporting that decision?”	de novo	correct	agree with court The court considered whether the trial court's failure to cite specific record sections was error. Upon independent review, the appellate court found no potentially meritorious issue, implying the record sufficiently supported the denial despite the lack of specific citations.

Authorities

relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Establishes the procedure for appointed appellate counsel to file a brief identifying no meritorious issues and requesting independent review of the record.
relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires the appellate court to conduct an independent review of the record for error when counsel identifies no meritorious issues.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires counsel to file a brief identifying potentially meritorious issues and the court to independently review the record to ensure no error was overlooked.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the Wende/Anders framework for reviewing appeals where counsel finds no merit. The court explicitly states it conducted an independent review and found no error, which is the required standard of review for this type of appeal.

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 trial court denied Jose Luis Fontenot's Penal Code section 1172.6 resentencing petition at the prima facie stage without issuing an order to show cause, finding from the record of conviction that he was the actual killer in both murders and therefore ineligible for relief as a matter of law. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Delgadillo/Wende brief identifying two possible issues, Fontenot filed his own brief that the court found raised no arguable issue, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no potentially meritorious issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of section 1172.6 petition for resentencing at the prima facie stage, without an order to show cause, on the ground that the record of conviction showed Fontenot was the actual killer and thus ineligible as a matter of law “The trial court found the record demonstrated Fontenot was the actual killer in both cases. Thus, the court found Fontenot was not eligible for relief under the statute as a matter of law.”	unclear	correct	agree with court A defendant who was the actual killer is ineligible for section 1172.6 relief as a matter of law, and the record of conviction may be consulted at the prima facie stage to establish ineligibility where no factfinding is required. The two Anders issues counsel flagged (no written prosecution response; no record citations in the ruling) do not support reversal because the prosecution's failure to respond does not entitle a petitioner to relief and the court did state its reason for denial. The opinion, however, does not state a standard of review or explain why the actual-killer determination was permissible without weighing evidence, so agreement rests on the limited record described.

Authorities

relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Sets the procedure for appeals from denial of section 1172.6 petitions where appointed counsel finds no arguable issues; the appellate court must notify the defendant, consider any supplemental brief filed, and may in its discretion conduct an independent review of the record
relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Appellate court conducts an independent review of the record when appointed counsel files a brief raising no arguable issues
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds no meritorious issues should identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal to assist the court's review
missed: People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.4th 952 — At the prima facie stage of a section 1172.6 petition the trial court may rely on the record of conviction to determine ineligibility as a matter of law but may not engage in factfinding or weighing of evidence; this governs whether the actual-killer determination here was proper without an evidentiary hearing

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The result is defensible because an actual killer is categorically ineligible for section 1172.6 relief and the Delgadillo procedure was followed, including notice to the defendant and consideration of his brief. The opinion skips any discussion of the governing prima facie standard under People v. Lewis and does not explain why the two issues counsel identified fail, leaving the analysis thin even for a Wende-type disposition.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 7/18/23 P. v. Fontenot 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, D081367

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. FBA1100269)

JOSE LUIS FONTENOT,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, Lisa M. Rogan, Judge. Affirmed. Jose Luis Fontenot, in pro. per.; and Patricia L. Brisbois, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2017, a jury convicted Jose Luis Fontenot of one count of first degree murder committed in 2011 and a second degree murder committed in 2009.

(Pen. Code,1 § 187, subd. (a).) The jury also found true a multiple murder enhancement (§ 190, subd. (a)(3)), and related firearms enhancement 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. (§ 12022.53, subds. (b), (c), and (d).) Fontenot was sentenced to life without parole for count 1 plus 15 years to life for second degree murder and two consecutive 25 year to life terms for the two firearm enhancements. In 2022, Fontenot filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. The court appointed counsel, reviewed the record of conviction, and held a hearing. The trial court found the record demonstrated Fontenot was the actual killer in both cases. Thus, the court found Fontenot was not eligible for relief under the statute as a matter of law. The petition for resentencing was denied without issuing an order to show cause. Fontenot 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 potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to exercise its discretion and conduct an independent review of the record for error consistent with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We notified Fontenot of his right to file his own brief on appeal. He has responded with a rambling discussion of his various complaints about the system and that he has not been treated fairly in his contacts with the criminal justice system. He does not raise any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal.2 DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Delgadillo and asks the court to conduct a Wende review of the record for error. To assist the court in its review, and in compliance with Anders v. 2 The facts of the two murder convictions are discussed in our unpublished opinion. (People v. Fontenot (Jan. 14, 2019, D074575).) 2 California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified two possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential meris of this appeal: 1. Did the trial court err in denying the petition for resentencing since the prosecutor did not file a written response to the petition? 2. Did the court err in denying the petition without citing to specific sections of the record supporting that decision? We have independently reviewed the record consistent with the requirements of Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Fontenot on this appeal. DISPOSITION The order denying Fontenot’s petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

O’ROURKE, J.

RUBIN, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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