Filed 3/3/22 P. v. Thomas CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ROBERT QUINCY THOMAS,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B315421

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. A763067)

THE COURT:

Robert Quincy Thomas (defendant) appeals the order of the 

superior court denying his motion for a sentence modification,

which the trial court construed as a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus. We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal, 

and after examination of the record, counsel filed an opening 
2

brief raising no issues and asking this court to follow the 

procedures set forth in People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 

496. Defendant filed a supplemental brief, in propria persona.

BACKGROUND

In February 1986, defendant pled guilty to one count of 

second degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a))1 and was 

sentenced to state prison for 15 years to life. 

On June 4, 2020, defendant filed a petition seeking 

resentencing under section 1170.95. (People v. Thomas (Jan. 14, 

2021, B306959).) 

On June 10, 2020, defendant filed a petition for writ of 

habeas corpus in the superior court seeking to vacate his 

conviction based on ineffective assistance of counsel. (People v. 

Thomas, supra, B306959.) 

On June 23, 2020, the superior court denied the petition for 

writ of habeas corpus on two broad grounds—namely, that (1) 

defendant’s petition was untimely filed, and (2) his ineffective 

assistance of counsel claims lacked merit because his counsel was 

not ineffective for (a) failing to advise him of the applicability of 

later-enacted section 1016.8, which did not apply to defendant, 

and (b) not objecting to the charging document, which was not 

defective. (People v. Thomas, supra, B306959.) 

Defendant appealed the order. However, in a noncapital 

case, no appeal lies from the denial of a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus. (Robinson v. Lewis (2020) 9 Cal.5th 883, 895 [“in 

noncapital cases, if the superior court denies a petition for a writ 

of habeas corpus, the petitioner has no statutory right to appeal. 

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code 

unless otherwise indicated.
3

Instead, the petitioner must file a new, original petition, 

generally in the Court of Appeal”]; Briggs v. Brown (2017) 3 

Cal.5th 808, 836 [“A petitioner currently has no right to appeal 

from a superior court denial of habeas corpus relief. Instead, 

review is obtained by filing a new habeas corpus petition in a 

higher court”]; In re Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 750, 767, fn. 7 

[“Because no appeal lies from the denial of a petition for writ of 

habeas corpus, a prisoner whose petition has been denied by the 

superior court can obtain review of his claims only by the filing of 

a new petition in the Court of Appeal”].) Accordingly, we 

dismissed that appeal. (People v. Thomas, supra, B306959.) 

On August 6, 2020, the trial court denied defendant’s 

resentencing petition on the ground that defendant was “the 

actual killer” and hence “ineligible for relief” under section 

1170.95 “as a matter of law.” Defendant did not appeal the order.

On April 14, 2021, defendant filed a petition for a writ of 

habeas corpus in this court, contending that his 1986 plea 

agreement was invalid. We denied the petition. 

On July 8, 2021, defendant filed with the trial court a onepage handwritten document titled “motion for sentence 

modification” that alluded to Senate Bill No. 1437, which 

amended sections 188 and 189 and added section 1170.95. 

On August 24, 2021, in a written memorandum of decision, 

the trial court construed the motion as a petition for writ of 

habeas corpus, and summarily denied defendant’s petition. The 

court explained that although defendant appeared to be 

requesting resentencing pursuant to section 1170.95, he had not 

complied with the procedural requirements of that section; i.e., he 

failed to serve the petition on the appropriate parties, to include a 

declaration that he was eligible for relief, and to specify whether 
4

or not he wished to have counsel appointed. (§ 1170.95, subd. 

(b)(1)(A) & (C).) The court also noted that defendant’s prior 

petition for relief pursuant to section 1170.95 had been denied 

because defendant is the actual killer and was therefore ineligible 

for relief as a matter of law. 

On September 21, 2021, defendant filed a timely notice of 

appeal. 

DISCUSSION

Defendant once more purports to appeal the order denying 

his habeas petition. As noted above, no appeal lies from the 

denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus. (See generally

Robinson v. Lewis (2020) 9 Cal.5th 883, 895; Briggs v. 

Brown (2017) 3 Cal.5th 808, 836.) Because defendant has no 

right to appeal the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, 

this appeal must be dismissed. Thus, to the extent defendant’s 

supplemental brief addresses issues beyond those covered by 

section 1170.95, they are beyond our jurisdiction to consider.

Even if we were to disregard the trial court’s 

characterization of defendant’s motion as a habeas petition, and 

instead to treat it as a successive petition for relief under section 

1170.95, to the extent it seeks relief under that section, the trial 

court’s denial of relief was still appropriate. It is undisputed that 

defendant’s motion did not declare that he was eligible for relief 

under the requirements of Senate Bill 1437, and did not specify 

whether he sought the appointment of counsel. Where, as here, 

“information required by” section 1170.95 “is missing from the 

petition and cannot be readily ascertained by the court, the court 

may deny the petition without prejudice to the filing of another 

petition and advise the petitioner that the matter cannot be 

considered without the missing information.” (§ 1170.95, subd.
5

(b)(2).) Here, the trial court’s order spelled out why defendant’s 

petition was deficient under section 1170.95. Although the court 

opted to construe the deficient filing as a habeas petition (rather 

than treating it solely as a deficient section 1170.95 filing and 

denying it without prejudice to a corrected filing), this is of no 

consequence because this was defendant’s second section 

1170.95-based filing, which demonstrates that defendant already 

knows he may file a successive petition.

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

——————————————————————————————

LUI , P. J., ASHMANN-GERST, J., HOFFSTADT, J.