People v. Dunn CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D082889 · 2024-05-21 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from an order
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD264080
Trial judge: Runston G. Maino
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Judith D. McConnell, Michele M. Castillo

Analysis

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

The trial court denied Dunn's second petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, finding he had not established a prima facie case and that collateral estoppel barred the claim based on the prior affirmance of his first petition. The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial, finding no potentially meritorious issues for reversal after reviewing the record and the appellant's pro per. brief.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of the second petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 “The court again found Dunn ineligible for relief under section 1172.6, without first issuing an order to show cause.”	de novo	correct	agree with court The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial, finding that Dunn had not stated a prima facie case for resentencing and that the prior affirmance of the first petition barred the second via collateral estoppel. The court found no error in the trial court's determination that Dunn was ineligible for relief under the statute.

Authorities

relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to file a brief identifying no meritorious issues on appeal (Anders brief) and allows the court to review the record independently.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to file a brief identifying any potentially meritorious issues and to notify the court and appellant if none are found.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it follows the required Anders/Delgadillo procedure for indigent appeals where counsel finds no merit. The court explicitly states it reviewed the record and the appellant's pro per. issues and found no error, which is the correct standard for reviewing a denial of a prima facie showing in a resentencing petition.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:29Z · confidence low

The trial court denied Emanuel Dunn's second Penal Code section 1172.6 resentencing petition at the prima facie stage, finding no prohibited theory of murder liability in his record of conviction and that collateral estoppel barred relitigation after affirmance of the denial of his first petition. On appeal, counsel filed a People v. Delgadillo no-issue brief, Dunn filed a one-page list of issues, and the Court of Appeal reviewed the record, found no arguably meritorious issue, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of second section 1172.6 petition at the prima facie stage on the ground that Dunn's murder conviction did not rest on any theory of imputed malice now prohibited by statute “The court, again, found none of the theories of liability prohibited by statute were present in Dunn’s conviction.”	unclear	correct	unsure Denial at the prima facie stage is reviewed de novo under People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, but the opinion never states a standard and never describes the theory on which the jury was instructed or convicted; it simply refers to its prior unpublished opinion. Without any description of the jury instructions or the record of conviction, the reader cannot independently confirm that no felony-murder or natural-and-probable-consequences theory was presented, so the result is plausible (the first appeal reached the same conclusion) but unverifiable from this opinion alone.
Finding that collateral estoppel barred the second section 1172.6 petition because the denial of the first petition arising from the same trial had been affirmed on appeal “The court also found the doctrine of collateral estoppel applied given the affirmance of the denial of the first resentencing petition arising from the same trial.”	unclear	correct	unsure Applying issue preclusion to successive section 1172.6 petitions is contested; People v. Farfan (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 942 held a successive petition may be entertained where intervening changes in law (Lewis, Senate Bill No. 775) occurred after the first denial, and Dunn's second petition was filed in September 2022, after SB 775 took effect. The opinion does not engage this question, listing it only as an Anders issue. Because the trial court also independently found no prohibited theory in the record of conviction, any error in the collateral estoppel ruling would not change the outcome, but the opinion's silence leaves the point unresolved.

Authorities

relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Sets the procedure for appeals from postconviction section 1172.6 denials where appointed counsel finds no arguable issues: the court must notify the defendant, consider any supplemental brief, and issue a written opinion addressing the issues raised; independent Wende-style review is discretionary, not required.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed appellate counsel who finds no meritorious issues may file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, allowing the court to review for arguable issues.
missed: People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.4th 952 — At the section 1172.6 prima facie stage the court may consult the record of conviction but may not engage in factfinding; the petitioner's allegations are taken as true unless refuted by the record as a matter of law, and the standard governs whether denial without an order to show cause was proper. (Correct citation is 11 Cal.5th 952.)

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows Delgadillo procedurally—notifying Dunn, considering his supplemental filing, and issuing a written decision—and the affirmance is defensible given the prior appellate affirmance on the same record of conviction. But it states no standard of review, describes nothing about the theory on which Dunn was convicted, and does not address whether collateral estoppel can properly bar a successive section 1172.6 petition filed after Senate Bill No. 775, leaving both Anders issues answered only by conclusion.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 5/21/24 P. v. Dunn 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, D082889

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD264080)

EMANUEL DUNN, JR., Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Runston G. Maino, Judge. Affirmed. Emanuel Dunn, Jr., in pro. per.; and Doris M. LeRoy, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2016, a jury convicted Emanuel Dunn, Jr. of second degree murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187). Based on his strike priors, Dunn was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 35 years to life in prison. We grant Dunn’s request to 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. take judicial notice of our records in his appeal from the original conviction (People v. Dunn (Oct. 16, 2017, D070810)). In 2020, Dunn filed his first petition for resentencing under then section 1170.95 (now renumbered section 1172.6). The trial court appointed counsel and reviewed the record of conviction. The court found Dunn had not stated a prima facie case for resentencing as required by the statute. The court denied the petition without issuing an order to show cause. Dunn appealed the denial of his first petition for resentencing. This court affirmed the order denying the petition in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Dunn (Sept. 10, 2021, D078793).) Undeterred, Dunn filed his second petition for resentencing of his murder conviction in September 2022. The trial court again appointed counsel and conducted a hearing on the petition. The court, again, found none of the theories of liability prohibited by statute were present in Dunn’s conviction. The court also found the doctrine of collateral estoppel applied given the affirmance of the denial of the first resentencing petition arising from the same trial. The court again found Dunn ineligible for relief under section 1172.6, without first issuing an order to show cause. Dunn filed a timely notice of appeal from the second denial of his resentencing petitions. 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. We informed Dunn he could file his own brief on appeal. He has responded with a one page list of possible issues we should consider. He has not submitted a brief which identifies and discusses any meritorious issues 2 for reversal on appeal. He asserts he could not now be convicted of murder under the existing valid theories of malice. DISCUSSION We have not included a statement of facts from the underlying offense as presented at trial. Our first opinion included a summary of the facts of the offense and no further discussion of the facts is warranted at this point. Appellate counsel has submitted a brief statement of possible issues in an effort to comply with Anders v. California (1967 ) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders). 1. Whether Dunn was convicted under any theory of murder in which malice was imputed to him based solely on his participation in the crime. 2. Whether Dunn’s second petition under section 1172.6 was barred by collateral estoppel given the affirmance of the first order denying relief. We have reviewed the record for error and have considered Dunn’s statement of issues as well as counsel’s list of Anders issues. We have not discovered any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Dunn on this appeal.

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

HUFFMAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

CASTILLO, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Delgadillo S266305 · 2022-12-19