People v. Mendoza CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from an order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCN063747
- Trial judge
- Lisa R. Rodriguez
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Judith D. McConnell, Buchanan
Analysis
The trial court denied Mendoza's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75, finding him ineligible because his prior conviction was for a felony sex offense. The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial 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 1172.75“The court found Mendoza was not eligible for relief because his prior conviction was for a felony sex offense.” | unclear | correct | agree with court agree with court |
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 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 for independent review when counsel identifies no arguable issues. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' opinion because it fails to explicitly state the standard of review or provide legal reasoning for why the trial court's eligibility determination was correct, relying solely on the negative finding of error.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual disposition unusual dispositionThe trial court denied Raul Barboza Mendoza's Penal Code section 1172.75 resentencing petition after finding him ineligible because the prison prior underlying his one-year enhancement was a felony sex offense. On appeal, counsel filed a Wende brief, Mendoza filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of section 1172.75 resentencing petition on the ground that Mendoza was ineligible because his prison prior was for a felony sex offense (including the question whether the imposed-and-stayed prior was eligible for relief).“The court found Mendoza was not eligible for relief because his prior conviction was for a felony sex offense.” | unclear | correct | unsure Section 1172.75, subdivision (a) invalidates section 667.5(b) enhancements except those imposed for a prior conviction for a sexually violent offense as defined in Welfare and Institutions Code section 6600(b). The opinion does not identify the prior offense or state that it qualifies as a 'sexually violent offense' under section 6600(b), rather than merely a 'felony sex offense,' so the record quoted is insufficient to confirm the trial court applied the statutory exception correctly. The court also did not address whether Wende review was required in this postconviction appeal under People v. Delgadillo, though it exercised independent review in any event. |
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 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal lacks merit should identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal to assist the reviewing court.
- missed: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Wende/Anders independent review is not constitutionally required in appeals from postconviction orders such as denials of resentencing petitions; when counsel finds no arguable issues, the court must notify the defendant of the right to file a supplemental brief and may, but need not, independently review the record.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court reached a defensible result by independently reviewing the record and finding no arguable issue, and nothing in the opinion suggests the ineligibility finding was wrong. It skipped the controlling framework of People v. Delgadillo for Wende-type appeals from postconviction orders, did not explain whether the prior qualified as a 'sexually violent offense' under Welfare and Institutions Code section 6600(b) as section 1172.75 requires, and misstated the statute as 'section 1172.55' in the disposition.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
record incompleteOpinion
Filed 6/7/24 P. v. Mendoza 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, D082476
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN063747)
RAUL BARBOZA MENDOZA,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Lisa R. Rodriguez, Judge. Affirmed. William Paul Melcher, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 1999, a jury convicted Raul Barboza Mendoza of multiple felony offenses. The convictions included murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187); robbery (§ 211); residential burglary (§ 459); false imprisonment by force (§ 236);
1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. evading a police officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)); vehicle theft (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)); and attempted murder (§§ 187 and 664). Mendoza was sentenced to three consecutive terms of life without the possibility of parole plus 149 years. The sentence was enhanced by one year for two prison prior convictions. (§ 667.5, subd. (b).) The court stayed the term for one of the priors. In 2023, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation notified the trial court that Mendoza was potentially eligible for resentencing under section 1172.75. The court appointed counsel and issued a tentative order denying the petition. The court found Mendoza was not eligible for relief because his prior conviction was for a felony sex offense. The court held a hearing and both parties submitted on the tentative order. The court adopted the tentative order and denied the petition for resentencing. Mendoza filed a timely notice of appeal. 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. We offered Mendoza the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. DISCUSSION The facts of the underlying crimes are not relevant to the issues raised by this appeal. We will not include a statement of facts in this opinion. 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 in its review, and 2 in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified two possible issues for the court’s consideration: 1. Whether the one year enhancement for the prison prior was eligible for relief under section 1172.75. 2. Whether the enhancement for the prison prior that was imposed and stayed was eligible for relief under section 1172.75. We have reviewed the record for error as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Mendoza on this appeal. DISPOSITION The order denying Mendoza’s petition for resentencing under section 1172.55 is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
BUCHANAN, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12