Filed 4/14/22 P. v. Edwards CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

KEITH ANSELM EDWARDS,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B311546

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. SA096007)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of 

Los Angeles County, William C. Ryan, Judge. Dismissed.

Jennifer L. Peabody, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
2

INTRODUCTION

Appellant Keith Anselm Edwards appealed following the 

trial court’s denial of a resentencing motion under Penal Code 

section 1170.911 and a petition for writ of habeas corpus. 

Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief on appeal raising no 

issues and invoking People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496 

(Serrano). Because neither appellant nor his counsel has raised a 

cognizable claim of error, we dismiss the appeal as abandoned.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On July 12, 2017, appellant entered a restaurant and 

punched a customer in the face while holding a knife, causing the 

customer to suffer injuries, including an orbital fracture and a cut 

requiring 12 stitches. The People filed an information charging 

appellant with premeditated attempted murder (§§ 187, subd. (a), 

664, count 1); criminal threats (§ 422, subd. (a), count 2); assault 

with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1), count 3); and mayhem 

(§ 203, count 4). The information further alleged as to each count 

that appellant used a knife (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)), and as to 

counts 1 through 3, that appellant caused great bodily injury 

(§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). In addition, the information alleged that 

appellant had a prior strike (§§ 667, 1170.12), a prior serious 

felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)), and a prison prior (§ 667.5, 

subd. (b)). 

On July 18, 2019, appellant pled no contest to assault with 

a deadly weapon (count 3), admitted the great bodily injury 

allegation, and admitted his prior strike. The court sentenced 

appellant to nine years: the mid-term of three years, doubled due 

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code 

unless otherwise indicated.
3

to the prior strike, plus three years for the great bodily injury

enhancement. The remaining counts were dismissed. 

On February 2, 2021, appellant filed a request to be 

resentenced pursuant to section 1170.91, which requires a 

sentencing court to consider as a mitigating factor whether a 

defendant suffers mental health problems as a result of military 

service. Appellant also requested resentencing pursuant to the 

Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Special Directive 20-08. 

On February 17, 2021, the trial court denied resentencing based 

on the Special Directive, stating that the Special Directive did not

constitute legal authority for resentencing. The court appointed 

counsel to “investigat[e] the validity” of appellant’s contention 

under section 1170.91. 

On February 19, 2021, appellant filed a petition for writ of 

habeas corpus, also seeking to recall his sentence and vacate the 

three-year enhancement. In the petition, appellant again argued 

that he was entitled to resentencing based on the Special 

Directive and section 1170.91. On February 24, 2021, the trial 

court denied appellant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, 

stating that the court lacked jurisdiction to change appellant’s 

sentence, and the Special Directive did not constitute legal 

authority for resentencing. 

Appellant filed a notice of appeal. The notice does not 

make clear whether appellant intended to appeal the order on the 

request for resentencing, the order denying the writ petition, or 

both. 

DISCUSSION

Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief raising no issues 

and invoking Serrano, supra, 211 Cal.App.4th 496. Under 

Serrano, when appointed counsel raises no issue in an appeal 
4

from a post-judgment proceeding, an appellate court need not 

independently review the record and may dismiss the appeal if 

the appellant fails to file a supplemental brief. (Id., at pp. 498, 

503.) We directed counsel to send the record and a copy of the 

brief to appellant, and notified appellant of his right to respond 

within 30 days. We received no response.

The trial court appointed counsel to investigate appellant’s 

potential entitlement to resentencing under section 1170.91; the 

outcome of that investigation, or any resulting resentencing 

decision, is not indicated in the appellate record. Because neither 

appellant nor his counsel has raised any claim of error, and 

because the denial of a petition for habeas corpus is not an 

appealable order (Robinson v. Lewis (2020) 9 Cal.5th 883, 895), 

we dismiss the appeal as abandoned.

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

COLLINS, J.

We concur:

MANELLA, P. J.

CURREY, J.