People v. Singleton CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from an order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD147179
- Trial judge
- Lisa R. Rodriguez
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Laurence D. Rubin, Michele M. Castillo
Analysis
The trial court denied Singleton's petition for resentencing under Senate Bill 483, finding that the prison prior enhancement had already been struck at the original sentencing in 2001. The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial, finding no arguable issues for reversal after an independent review of the record pursuant to Wende and Anders.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of petition for resentencing under Senate Bill 483“After reviewing the record, the court concluded the prison prior was struck at the original sentencing and therefore nothing remained for which the court could grant relief.” | de novo | correct | agree with court The trial court correctly determined that because the enhancement was already struck, there was no valid enhancement remaining to be dismissed under SB 483. The appellate court affirmed this conclusion after an independent review of the record. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to independently review the record for error when no arguable issues are identified.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires counsel to file a brief identifying any arguable issues and request 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 relies on the trial court's factual finding that the prior was struck without providing a detailed legal analysis of SB 483's applicability to previously struck enhancements, though the result is defensible.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual disposition unusual dispositionThe San Diego Superior Court denied Kelvin Singleton's motions for resentencing under Senate Bill No. 483, finding that the section 667.5, subdivision (b) prison prior had already been struck at his 2001 sentencing so there was no enhancement left to dismiss. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief, the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record and Singleton's supplemental materials, denied his request for judicial notice, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of Senate Bill No. 483 (Pen. Code, § 1172.75) resentencing motions on the ground that the prison prior enhancement had been struck at the original 2001 sentencing and therefore nothing remained for the court to dismiss“After reviewing the record, the court concluded the prison prior was struck at the original sentencing and therefore nothing remained for which the court could grant relief.” | unclear | correct | agree with court Section 1172.75 invalidates prison prior enhancements that were 'imposed' before 2020. Where the sentencing court struck the enhancement and imposed no term for it, there is no enhancement in the judgment to strike and no basis for full resentencing under the statute; the trial court's conclusion is consistent with the statutory text. The appellate court did not articulate a standard of review or discuss the statute, but conducted Wende/Anders review and found no arguable issue. The result appears correct, though the opinion offers no analysis of the 'imposed' question or of the remaining complaints Singleton raised about his underlying sentence, which are outside the scope of an appeal from this order. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel finds no arguable issues, the Court of Appeal independently reviews the record for error.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Counsel who finds no meritorious issues should identify possible issues to assist the court's independent review.
- missed: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Wende/Anders independent review is not constitutionally required in appeals from postconviction orders; the court should evaluate the arguments in the defendant's supplemental brief and may, but need not, independently review the record. The opinion applied Wende to a postconviction section 1172.75 appeal without addressing Delgadillo.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The result is defensible because an enhancement that was struck at sentencing was never imposed and thus is not subject to dismissal under section 1172.75, and the court did review Singleton's supplemental materials. The opinion, however, applies Wende review to a postconviction order without acknowledging Delgadillo's holding that such review is discretionary in that setting, and it never cites section 1172.75 or explains why a stricken prior falls outside the statute.
Opinion
Filed 2/28/24 P. v. Singleton 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, D082337
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD147179)
KELVIN L. SINGLETON, Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Lisa R. Rodriguez, Judge. Affirmed. Kelvin L. Singleton, in pro. per.; and Pauline E. Villanueva, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Kelvin L. Singleton is serving a sentence for convictions in 2001 of robbery (Pen. Code,1 § 211) and true findings on two alleged strike priors (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)) and two serious felony priors (§ 667, subd. (a)). The court imposed an indeterminate term of 35 years to life under the three 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. strikes law.2 There was a true finding on an alleged prison prior (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), however the court struck the prior and did not impose an additional term for that enhancement. In 2023, Singleton was identified as a person who might be eligible to have the prison prior dismissed under Senate Bill No. 483 as an invalid enhancement. Singleton filed motions for resentencing, including many allegations but they were primarily directed at eliminating the enhancement. The trial court appointed counsel and received briefing. After reviewing the record, the court concluded the prison prior was struck at the original sentencing and therefore nothing remained for which the court could grant relief. Singleton filed a timely notice of appeal. He also requests judicial notice of a published appellate opinion and a request he made to the Superior Court of San Luis Obispo County. We deny the request. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to independently review the record for error as mandated by Wende. Singleton has responded with a brief, an addendum to the brief, a letter and a request for judicial notice. The vast bulk of the material does not deal with the question raised by this appeal but expresses his many complaints about his underlying sentence. Although the materials are lengthy we find they do not raise any arguable issues for reversal of the specific order under review by this appeal.
2 Singleton appealed and this court affirmed the judgment in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Singleton (Dec. 21, 2001, D037600).) 2 DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to review the record for error. To assist the court, 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 court erred in finding Singleton was not eligible for resentencing since the sentencing court struck the prison prior in 2001. We have reviewed the record as required by Wende and Anders, including the many pages of materials submitted by Singleton. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Singleton on this appeal. DISPOSITION The order denying Singleton’s petition for resentencing is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
CASTILLO, J.
RUBIN, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12