People v. Jarvis CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D081544 · 2023-12-19 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from an order
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD238601
Trial judge: Jeffrey F. Fraser
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Judith D. McConnell (author), O'Rourke, Julia C. Kelety

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:22Z · confidence low

The trial court denied Jarvis's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, finding he was ineligible for relief as a matter of law because the record showed he personally inflicted great bodily injury and acted with premeditation. The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende and finding no potentially meritorious issues.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 “Thus, the court found Jarvis was not eligible for relief under section 1172.6 as a matter of law. The court denied the petition for resentencing without issuing an order to show cause.”	de novo	correct	agree with court agree with court

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 appointed counsel identifies no meritorious issues.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to file a brief identifying potentially meritorious issues or explaining why none exist, and the court to independently review the record.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the Wende/Anders framework to review the record for error. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' opinion because it does not explicitly analyze the legal standard for eligibility under section 1172.6 or address the specific statutory elements (such as the natural and probable consequences doctrine) beyond stating the trial court's factual findings, relying instead on the independent review finding no error.

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 Terrence Jarvis's Penal Code section 1172.6 petition for resentencing at the prima facie stage without issuing an order to show cause, finding the record of conviction showed he acted alone, personally inflicted great bodily injury, and acted with premeditation in committing attempted murder, so he was ineligible as a matter of law. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Delgadillo/Wende brief, Jarvis filed a supplemental brief raising issues unrelated to section 1172.6, 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 section 1172.6 resentencing petition at the prima facie stage without issuing an order to show cause, on the ground that Jarvis was ineligible for relief as a matter of law because he was the sole perpetrator who personally inflicted great bodily injury and acted with premeditation, and was not convicted under the natural and probable consequences doctrine or any imputed-malice theory. “the court found the record demonstrated Jarvis had acted alone in personally inflicting great bodily injury on the victim, which resulted in the conviction for attempted murder.”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion does not state a standard of review; it conducts a discretionary Wende/Anders independent review under Delgadillo and finds no arguable issue. If the record of conviction (particularly the jury instructions) shows Jarvis was tried solely as the direct perpetrator of attempted murder with no natural and probable consequences or imputed-malice instruction, denial at the prima facie stage is proper under section 1172.6, subdivision (c). However, the opinion does not describe the instructions given at trial, and the trial court's reliance on findings that Jarvis 'acted alone' and 'acted with premeditation' edges toward factfinding that People v. Lewis cautions against at the prima facie stage; a premeditation finding alone would not necessarily preclude relief for attempted murder. The result is likely right, but the opinion does not supply enough of the record to confirm it.

Authorities

relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — In an appeal from the denial of a section 1172.6 petition, Wende review is not constitutionally required, but when counsel finds no arguable issues the court must notify the defendant of the right to file a supplemental brief and may, in its discretion, independently review the record.
relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel finds no arguable issues, the Court of Appeal independently reviews the entire record for arguable error.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal without merit should file a brief referring to 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 court may consult the record of conviction but must accept the petitioner's allegations as true and may not engage in factfinding involving the weighing of evidence or the exercise of discretion; denial without an order to show cause is proper only where the record refutes the allegations as a matter of law.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court correctly applied Delgadillo by notifying Jarvis of his right to file a supplemental brief, considering it, and exercising discretion to independently review the record, and its conclusion that a sole direct perpetrator is ineligible under section 1172.6 is consistent with the statute. The opinion is thin, however: it does not identify what the record of conviction (e.g., jury instructions) showed about the theories of liability presented, and it does not address Lewis's limits on factfinding at the prima facie stage, even though the trial court's stated findings resemble factual determinations.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 12/19/23 P. v. Jarvis 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, D081544

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD238601)

TERRENCE JARVIS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Jeffrey F. Fraser, Judge. Affirmed. Gene D. Vorobyov, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2014, a jury convicted Terrence Jarvis of one count of attempted murder (Pen. Code,1 §§ 187, subd. (a), 664), two counts of robbery (§ 211), two 1 All undesignated statutory references herein are to the Penal Code. counts of attempted robbery (§§ 211, 664), one count of assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)), and one count of shooting at an inhabited occupied structure (§ 246). The jury found the attempted murder “was willful, deliberate and premeditated within the meaning of Penal Code section 189.” The jury also found true multiple sentence enhancement allegations, including that, in the commission of the attempted murder, Jarvis had “personally inflicted great bodily injury upon [the victim].” (See § 12022.7, subd. (a)). The trial court imposed an aggregate indeterminate sentence of 60 years to life plus 45 years and an aggregate determinate sentence of 64 years and four months. On direct appeal in 2015, we concluded the trial court had erred in imposing a five-year enhancement for each determinate term, instead of just once as part of the aggregate determinate sentence. (People v. Jarvis (Oct.

29, 2015, D066240) [nonpub. opn.].)2 We remanded for resentencing of the determinate terms but affirmed in all other respects. (Ibid.)

In 2022, Jarvis filed a petition for resentencing under section 1170.95.3 The trial court appointed counsel, reviewed the record of conviction, and held a hearing. During the January 2023 hearing, the court found the record demonstrated Jarvis had acted alone in personally inflicting great bodily injury on the victim, which resulted in the conviction for attempted murder. The court further found the record demonstrated Jarvis had acted with premeditation. Thus, the court found Jarvis was not eligible for relief under 2 The facts relevant to Jarvis’s convictions are summarized in our unpublished opinion.

3 Former section 1170.95 was renumbered as section 1172.6 without substantive change on June 30, 2022. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) We shall refer to the subject statute by its current number hereafter.

2 section 1172.6 as a matter of law. The court denied the petition for resentencing without issuing an order to show cause. Jarvis appealed. 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 Jarvis of his right to file his own brief on appeal. He has responded with a discussion of issues unrelated to relief under section 1172.6, including alleged failure to instruct on lesser included offenses and alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. He does not raise any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. 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. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified one issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: whether the trial court erred in concluding that Jarvis is ineligible for relief under section 1172.6 as a matter of law because Jarvis was not convicted of attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine or any theory under which malice is imputed based solely on participation in some other crime. 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 Jarvis on this appeal.

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

McCONNELL, 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