People v. Cuevas CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D081672 · 2023-08-02 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from an order
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. CR20219
Trial judge: Robert O. Amador
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), O'Rourke, Julia C. Kelety

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:30Z · confidence high

The trial court denied Cuevas's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, finding he was the actual killer who acted alone. The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial after an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Delgadillo, finding no meritorious issues.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 “Because Cuevas was the killer who acted alone in the relief under section 1172.6, the court denied the petition without issuing an order to show cause.”	de novo	correct	agree with court The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial, finding that Cuevas was the actual killer who acted alone, which precludes relief under section 1172.6. The court conducted an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Delgadillo and found no error.

Authorities

relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Establishes the procedure for appellate review when appointed counsel files a brief indicating no meritorious issues, requiring the court to independently review the record.
relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Establishes the standard for independent appellate review of the record when counsel files a Wende brief.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to file a brief identifying any potentially meritorious issues and to request the court to independently review the record.

The appellate opinion: sound — The court correctly applied the Delgadillo/Wende framework to conduct an independent review of the record. It properly identified that the trial court's finding that Cuevas was the actual killer who acted alone precluded relief under section 1172.6, and it correctly distinguished Cuevas's broader arguments about excessive imprisonment from the limited scope of section 1172.6.

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 John Charles Cuevas's Penal Code section 1172.6 resentencing petition at the prima facie stage, without issuing an order to show cause, after finding that he was the actual killer who admitted strangling the victim in his 1970 first degree murder plea. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Delgadillo brief, Cuevas filed lengthy supplemental submissions attacking the length of his 53-year imprisonment rather than the section 1172.6 ruling, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issue, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of section 1172.6 petition at the prima facie stage, without an order to show cause, on the ground that Cuevas was the actual killer and therefore ineligible for relief as a matter of law “denied the petition without issuing an order to show cause.”	unclear	correct	agree with court An actual killer is ineligible for section 1172.6 relief under any theory, and the opinion states Cuevas admitted strangling the victim, which, if that admission is part of the record of conviction (e.g., the plea), permits denial at the prima facie stage. The opinion does not, however, cite People v. Lewis or explain where the admission comes from, so it does not expressly confirm the trial court avoided impermissible factfinding at the prima facie stage; the result nonetheless appears correct on the facts stated.
Rejection of Cuevas's supplemental contentions that his 53-year imprisonment is excessive and that he was promised a 20-year maximum at his plea, as outside the scope of section 1172.6 “section 1172.6 is not the legal mechanism to”	de novo	correct	agree with court Section 1172.6 provides a limited vehicle for resentencing persons convicted under felony-murder, natural and probable consequences, or other imputed-malice theories; claims about sentence length, parole, or plea promises are not cognizable in that proceeding, so the court correctly declined to reach them.

Authorities

relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — In an appeal from denial of a section 1172.6 petition where appointed counsel finds no arguable issues, Wende review is not constitutionally required, but the Court of Appeal must evaluate any supplemental brief filed by the defendant and may exercise discretion to independently review the record.
relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Procedure for independent appellate review of the record when appointed counsel identifies no arguable issues in a first appeal of right.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous must so advise the court and identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
missed: People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952 — At the section 1172.6 prima facie stage the trial court may consider the record of conviction and deny the petition only where the record refutes the petitioner's allegations as a matter of law; it may not engage in factfinding or weigh evidence at that stage.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court correctly applied Delgadillo by addressing Cuevas's supplemental briefs and independently reviewing the record, and affirmance is defensible because an admitted actual killer is ineligible for section 1172.6 relief. The opinion is thin, however: it does not cite Lewis, does not identify the source of the admission that Cuevas strangled the victim, and contains a garbled sentence describing the trial court's reasoning, leaving the prima facie analysis largely unexplained.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 8/2/23 P. v. Cuevas 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, D081672

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. CR20219)

JOHN CHARLES CUEVAS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Robert O. Amador, Judge. Affirmed. John Charles Cuevas, in pro. per.; and John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 1970, John Charles Cuevas pleaded guilty to first degree murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187). In 2022, Cuevas filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. The court appointed counsel, received briefing, and held a hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court found that Cuevas was 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. the actual killer of the victim, who he strangled to death. Because Cuevas was the killer who acted alone in the relief under section 1172.6, the court denied the petition without issuing an order to show cause. Cuevas timely appealed from the denial of his petition. 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 meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to exercise our discretion to independently review the record for error as we would if People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) applied. We notified Cuevas of his right to file his own brief on appeal. He has responded with two submissions totaling almost 100 pages of argument and exhibits. As we will discuss later, the material submitted does not address the merits of the petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. Notwithstanding the length of the supplemental briefing, it does not identify any potentially meritorious issues for reversal of the order in this case. STATEMENT OF FACTS Cuevas admitted that on January 21, 1970, he strangled Debra F. to death. DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to the procedure established by Delgadillo 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 (Anders), counsel has identified a possible issue which was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Whether the trial court erred in finding Cuevas had not stated a prima facie case for relief.

2 As we noted above, Cuevas has submitted lengthy supplemental briefs including numerous exhibits. They do not discuss the denial of the petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. The materials relate to the indeterminate sentencing law, the amount of time he has been in prison (53 years). He contends he was told he would not serve more than 20 years when he pleaded guilty. His basic contention is his imprisonment is excessive and he should be released. We are aware of the length of his imprisonment and the arguments he makes for relief. However, resentencing under section 1172.6 is not an open- ended review of the petitioner’s entire history with the criminal justice system. Rather, it provides an opportunity to address limited circumstances where a petitioner may seek resentencing. Whatever the potential merits of his many arguments might be, section 1172.6 is not the legal mechanism to address such contentions. We have exercised our discretion and independently reviewed the record for error in the same manner as we would under Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Cuevas on this appeal.

3 DISPOSITION The order denying Cuevas’s petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

O’ROURKE, J.

KELETY, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Delgadillo S266305 · 2022-12-19
People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12