People v. Taylor CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from an order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Bernardino County · No. FWV1503696
- Trial judge
- Bridgid M. McCann
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Judith D. McConnell, Joan K. Irion
Analysis
The trial court denied Taylor's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, finding he was ineligible as a matter of law because he was the actual killer. The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial, finding no error after an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 without issuing an order to show cause.“As the actual killer, the court found Taylor was not eligible for resentencing under section 1172.6 as a matter of law. The court denied the petition without issuing an order to show cause.” | de novo | correct | agree with court The appellate court affirmed the denial, noting that Taylor was the actual killer and thus ineligible for relief under section 1172.6. The court conducted an independent review of the record and found no error. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Establishes the procedure for appellate counsel to file a brief when they cannot identify meritorious issues, requesting independent review by the court.
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appellate courts to independently review the record for error when appointed counsel files a Wende brief.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires counsel to file a brief identifying potentially meritorious issues and the court to conduct an independent review.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the Wende/Anders framework for reviewing an appeal where counsel identifies no meritorious issues. The court correctly notes that the underlying conviction is not subject to review on appeal from the denial of a resentencing petition.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe San Bernardino County Superior Court denied Andre Lamont Taylor's Penal Code section 1172.6 resentencing petition at the prima facie stage, without issuing an order to show cause, after finding from the record of conviction that he was tried as the sole perpetrator and the actual killer, as reflected in the jury's section 12022.53, subdivision (d) finding that he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing death. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Delgadillo brief, Taylor filed a supplemental brief attacking only his underlying convictions and not the actual-killer finding, 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 the record of conviction showed Taylor was the actual killer and therefore ineligible for relief as a matter of law“As the actual killer, the court found Taylor was not eligible for resentencing under section 1172.6 as a matter of law.” | unclear | correct | agree with court Section 1172.6 relief is available only to defendants convicted under felony murder, natural and probable consequences, or another theory imputing malice; a defendant who was the sole perpetrator and actual killer, with a jury finding that he personally and intentionally discharged the firearm causing death, is ineligible as a matter of law, and the trial court may consult the record of conviction at the prima facie stage to make that determination. Taylor's supplemental brief conceded he fired the shots and attacked only the intent and validity of the underlying conviction, matters outside the scope of a 1172.6 appeal. The result is correct, though the opinion does not state a standard of review or cite the governing prima facie authority. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Procedures for appointed counsel's no-issue brief in an appeal from denial of a section 1172.6 petition; when the defendant files a supplemental brief the court must evaluate the arguments raised and may, in its discretion, independently review the record
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Appellate court's independent review of the record when appointed counsel finds 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
- missed: People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.4th 952 — At the prima facie stage of a section 1172.6 petition the court may consider the record of conviction, including the jury's findings and the prior appellate opinion, but may not engage in factfinding; denial without an order to show cause is proper only where the record establishes ineligibility as a matter of law
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The result is clearly correct: an actual killer tried as the sole perpetrator, with a personal-discharge-causing-death finding and no accomplice theory, is ineligible for section 1172.6 relief, and the supplemental brief raised only challenges to the underlying conviction that are not cognizable in this appeal. The opinion, however, does not state the standard of review or cite the controlling authority on prima facie review (People v. Lewis), relying instead on the Delgadillo/Wende framework to dispose of the appeal summarily.
Opinion
Filed 9/20/23 P. v. Taylor 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, D081728
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. FWV1503696)
ANDRE LAMONT TAYLOR,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, Bridgid M. McCann, Judge. Affirmed. Andre Lamont Taylor, in pro. per.; and Leslie A. Rose, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. A jury convicted Andre Lamont Taylor of first degree murder (Pen.
Code,1 § 187, subd. (a)) and possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)). The jury found Taylor personally discharged a firearm causing death or great bodily injury to a victim (§ 12022.53, (subd. (d)). The court 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. found true two strike priors (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)). Taylor was originally sentenced to a term of 106 years to life in prison. Taylor appealed and this court affirmed the convictions, but reversed the sentence and remanded the case for possible retrial of the strike and serious felony priors in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Taylor (Feb. 15, 2019, D074449).) Taylor’s sentence was reduced to a term of 53 years to life in prison. In 2022, Taylor filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. The court appointed counsel, received briefing, reviewed the record of conviction and held a hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court found Taylor was tried as the sole perpetrator and was the actual killer in this case. The jury found he was the person who intentionally discharged the firearm causing death. As the actual killer, the court found Taylor was not eligible for resentencing under section 1172.6 as a matter of law. The court denied the petition without issuing an order to show cause. Taylor 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 to independently review the record for error under the procedures of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We notified Taylor he could submit his own brief on appeal. Taylor responded with a supplemental brief that does not discuss any potentially meritorious issue that would challenge the trial court’s denial of the petition for resentencing. Taylor raises a number of challenges to the underlying conviction, which we have previously upheld on direct appeal. Taylor does not challenge the finding he was the actual killer. Interestingly, he contends 2 he shot the victim 12 times by accident. The fact some of the shots struck the victim in the arms and legs shows he did not intend to kill. The validity of the convictions is not before this court on appeal from the denial of his resentencing petition.2 DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Delgadillo. Counsel asks the court to independently review the record for error. To assist the court in its review, and in an effort to comply 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 trial court properly denied appellant’s petition without issuing an order to show cause. We have independently reviewed the record for error consistent with Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Taylor on this appeal.
2 The facts of the offense were adequately discussed in our prior opinion. We will not repeat the discussion here. 3 DISPOSITION The order denying Taylor’s petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
IRION, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Delgadillo S266305 · 2022-12-19
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12