Filed 4/6/21 P. v. Crowder 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CHAUNCEY CROWDER,

Defendant and Appellant.

 D077981

 (Super. Ct. No. RIF1602244)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Riverside County, 

Mac R. Fisher, Judge. Affirmed. 

Lizabeth Weis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 

Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In 2017, a jury convicted Chauncey Crowder of voluntary manslaughter 

(Pen. Code, § 192, subd. (a)) as a lesser included offense of murder. The jury 

found true an allegation that he personally discharged a firearm during the 

crime (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)). Crowder admitted two serious felony prior 

convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)) and two strikes (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)). 
2

The court denied Crowder’s motion to strike the “strike” priors and 

sentenced Crowder to an indeterminate term of 39 years to life. 

Crowder appealed and in March 2019, this court affirmed the 

conviction in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Crowder (Mar. 19, 2019, 

D074884) [nonpub. opn.].) During the pendency of the appeal, the 

Legislature passed Senate Bill No. 620 which permits the trial court to strike 

firearm enhancements. The Legislature also passed Senate Bill No. 1393 

which permits trial courts to strike the serious felony priors. In our prior 

opinion, we held that Crowder was entitled to request the trial court to 

exercise its newly enacted discretion to strike the priors and the 

enhancement. Accordingly, we remanded the case to the trial court to permit 

the court to exercise its discretion.

On remand, the trial court conducted a hearing on Crowder’s motions. 

The court considered the facts of the offense and the prior sentence. The 

court also reviewed Crowder’s prison record. 

After the review, the trial court declined to exercise its new discretion 

to strike the priors or the firearms enhancement. The court reinstated the 

original sentence. 

Crowder 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 review the 

record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Crowder the opportunity 

to file his own brief on appeal but, he has not responded.
3

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The facts of the offense are fully set forth in our prior opinion. We will 

not repeat them here.

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 in its review, and 

in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel 

has identified a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential 

merits of this appeal: Did the trial court abuse its discretion in declining to 

strike Crowder’s serious felony priors (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)) and firearm 

enhancement (§ 12022.5, subd. (a))?

We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. 

We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. 

Competent counsel has represented Crowder on this appeal.
4

DISPOSITION

The order denying Crowder’s motion to strike the serious felony priors 

and the firearm enhancement is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

IRION, J.