People v. Cruz CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D081720 · 2024-01-30 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from an order
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCE309627
Trial judge: Herbert J. Exarhos
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Joan K. Irion, Buchanan

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:19Z · confidence high

The trial court denied David Cruz's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, finding he failed to make a prima facie showing and was ineligible for relief as a matter of law. The Court of Appeal affirmed the order, finding no error after independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende and People v. Delgadillo.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 “The court found that Cruz had failed to state a prima facie showing for relief under section 1172.6. The court found Cruz was not eligible for relief under the statute as a matter of law.”	de novo	correct	agree with court The appellate court affirmed the denial, noting that Cruz was convicted as the actual perpetrator and the jury was not instructed on natural and probable consequences or felony murder, which renders him ineligible for relief under section 1172.6. The court found no error in the trial court's determination that Cruz failed to make a prima facie showing.

Authorities

relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Appellate counsel may file a brief identifying no meritorious issues and request the court to independently review the record for error.
relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Appellate courts must independently review the record for error when appointed counsel identifies no meritorious issues.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel must file a brief identifying potentially meritorious issues and request the court to review the record for error.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly applies the Wende/Delgadillo framework to review the record and affirms the trial court's denial based on Cruz's status as the actual perpetrator, which precludes relief under section 1172.6. The court properly notes that Cruz's arguments regarding the original trial are not relevant to the resentencing petition.

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 David Cruz's Penal Code section 1172.6 resentencing petition at the prima facie stage, finding him ineligible as a matter of law because he was convicted as the actual perpetrator and the jury was not instructed on natural and probable consequences or felony murder. On appeal, counsel filed a Delgadillo brief, Cruz filed a supplemental brief largely attacking his original trial, 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 issuing an order to show cause or holding an evidentiary hearing “The court found that Cruz had failed to state a prima facie showing for relief under section 1172.6. The court found Cruz was not eligible for relief under the statute as a matter of law.”	unclear	correct	agree with court Section 1172.6 relief is available only to those convicted under felony murder, natural and probable consequences, or another theory imputing malice. Cruz acknowledged he was convicted as the actual perpetrator and that the jury received no felony-murder or natural-and-probable-consequences instructions, so the record of conviction establishes ineligibility as a matter of law under the framework of People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952. The court did not state a standard of review, but a prima facie ruling is reviewed de novo and the result holds under that standard.
Trial court's consideration of the factual summary from the prior appellate opinion in ruling on the petition “Cruz does argue the trial court should not have considered the factual summary of the offense as contained in our original opinion.”	unclear	correct	agree with court People v. Lewis cautions that the factual summary in a prior appellate opinion has limited probative value at the prima facie stage and the court may not engage in factfinding, and section 1172.6, subdivision (d)(3) limits reliance on such summaries at the evidentiary hearing. The Court of Appeal did not analyze this argument, but any reliance was harmless because the jury instructions alone, which are properly part of the record of conviction, show Cruz was convicted as the actual killer under a theory of malice that remains valid. The result is defensible even though the opinion does not explain why.

Authorities

relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — When appointed counsel finds no arguable issues on appeal from denial of a section 1172.6 petition, the appellate court must evaluate any issues raised in the defendant's supplemental brief and may, in its discretion, 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 on a first appeal of right.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal without merit should file a brief identifying anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal to assist the court's review.
missed: People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952 — At the prima facie stage of a section 1172.6 petition the court may consult the record of conviction, including jury instructions, but may not engage in factfinding; the factual summary in a prior appellate opinion has limited probative value and should be used with caution.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court correctly applied Delgadillo and Wende procedure and the result is right because the undisputed jury instructions and Cruz's own concession that he was the actual perpetrator foreclose section 1172.6 relief. The opinion, however, never explains why the two issues counsel flagged lack merit and does not cite People v. Lewis, which directly governs both the prima facie standard and the use of a prior appellate opinion's factual summary.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 1/30/24 P. v. Cruz 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, D081720

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCE309627)

DAVID CRUZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Herbert J. Exarhos, Judge. Affirmed. David Cruz, in pro. per.; and Cynthia Grimm, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2013, a jury convicted David Cruz of assault on a child with force likely to produce great bodily injury, resulting in the death of the child (Pen.

Code,1 § 273ab, subd. (a)) and murder (§ 187, subd. (a)).

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. Cruz was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 25 years to life for the assault conviction. The sentence on the second degree murder conviction was stayed under section 654. Cruz appealed and this court affirmed the judgment in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Cruz (May 20, 2015, D065008).) In 2022, Cruz filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. The court appointed counsel, received briefing, reviewed the record of conviction, and held a hearing. The court found that Cruz had failed to state a prima facie showing for relief under section 1172.6. The court found Cruz was not eligible for relief under the statute as a matter of law.

Cruz filed a timely notice of appeal.2 Appellate counsel has filed a brief consistent with 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 review the record for error as we would if a brief were filed pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We notified Cruz he could submit his own brief on appeal. Cruz has responded with approximately 70-pages of material, the vast bulk of which does not address any issues with regard to the propriety of the order which denied his petition for resentencing. The focus of Cruz’s submission is on his many claims of error in the original trial. He does acknowledge he was convicted as the actual perpetrator and that the jury was not instructed on natural and probable consequences or felony murder.

2 We discussed the facts of the offense in our prior decision. We will not repeat them here. 2 Cruz does argue the trial court should not have considered the factual summary of the offense as contained in our original opinion. DISCUSSION As we have noted, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to 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 two issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: 1. Whether the court erred in denying the petition for resentencing without first issuing an order to show cause and holding an evidentiary hearing; and 2. Whether the trial court prejudicially erred in considering the factual statement contained in our previous appeal. 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 Cruz on this appeal.

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

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

IRION, J.

BUCHANAN, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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