Filed 6/16/15 P. v. Davis CA4/3 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

DIVISION THREE 

THE PEOPLE, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

 v. 

JEFFREY SHANE DAVIS, 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

 G050664 

 (Super. Ct. No. 01WF1445) 

 O P I N I O N 

 

 Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Gary S. 

Paer, Judge. Affirmed. 

 Esther K. Hong, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant 

and Appellant. 

 No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. 
2

 We appointed counsel to represent Jeffrey Shane Davis on appeal. Counsel 

filed a brief that set forth the facts of the case. Counsel did not argue against her client 

but advised the court she found no issues to argue on his behalf. Davis was given 

30 days to file written argument on his own behalf. That time has passed, and Davis did 

not file a brief. 

 Counsel filed a brief following the procedures outlined in People v. Wende 

(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). The court in Wende explained a Wende brief is one that 

sets forth a summary of proceedings and facts but raises no specific issues. Under these 

circumstances, the court must conduct an independent review of the entire record. When 

specific issues are raised by the appellant himself in a Wende proceeding, we must 

expressly address them in our opinion and explain why they fail. (People v. Kelly (2006) 

40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 120, 124.) Here, Davis did not file a brief raising any issues. 

 Davis appeals from the trial court’s finding he was ineligible for 

resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.126.

1

 Pursuant to Anders v. California

(1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), to assist the court with its independent review, counsel 

provided the court with information as to an issue that might arguably support an appeal. 

Did the trial court err when it found Davis was ineligible for resentencing because he had 

been convicted of battery with serious bodily harm? 

 We have reviewed the record in accordance with our obligations under 

Wende and Anders, and considered the information provided by counsel. We found no 

arguable issues on appeal. The judgment is affirmed. 

FACTS 

 In November 2001, an information charged Davis with assault by means of 

force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(1), count 1), and battery with 

serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d), count 2). The information alleged that on counts 1 

 

1

 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 
3

and 2, Davis inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7), and that the offenses were serious 

felonies (§ 1192.7, subd. (c)(8)). The information also alleged Davis had two prior 

convictions or juvenile adjudications of serious or violent felonies (§§ 667, subds. (d), 

(e)(2), 1170.12, subds. (b), (c)(2)). One prior was for robbery (§ 211) on July 8, 1993, 

and the other was for extortion (§ 524) on July 8, 1993. As to the prior conviction of 

robbery, the information also alleged it was a serious felony (§§ 667, subd. (a)(1), 1192.7, 

subd. (c)). As to both prior convictions, the information alleged Davis was previously 

convicted of a felony, served a separate prison term for the offense, and committed the 

current offense during a period of five years subsequent to the conclusion of the term 

(§ 667.5, subd. (b)). 

 In November 2007, at a bench trial, the trial court found Davis guilty of 

count 2 but acquitted him of count 1. The court found the prior conviction allegations to 

be true. On the prosecutor’s motion, the court struck the section 12022.7 great bodily 

injury enhancements on counts 1 and 2 under section 1385. The court imposed a 

sentence of 30 years to life. The sentence consisted of 25 years to life for count 2, and a 

consecutive term of 5 years for the prior conviction pursuant to section 667, subdivision 

(a)(1), for his prior conviction from July 8, 1993. 

 In May 2014, Davis filed a petition for recall of sentence pursuant to 

section 1170.126. Davis asserted his current offense of battery with serious bodily injury 

(§ 243, subd. (d)), is not an offense enumerated in section 667, 

subdivision (e)(2)(C)(i-iii), and that his two prior convictions of serious or violent 

convictions were not enumerated in section 667, subdivision (e)(2)(C)(iv). 

 In July 2014, the prosecution filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the 

ground Davis is ineligible for resentencing as a matter of law. In support of its 

contention, the prosecution cited the injuries suffered by the victim in the underlying 

third strike case. After Davis punched the victim, he fell and hit his head on the floor 

sustaining a closed head injury with subarachnoid hemorrhage. The victim was found to 
4

have a fractured skull and intracerebral hemorrhage, which was bleeding around the 

brain. The prosecution also noted the court could only impose the section 667, 

subdivision (a)(1), prior if the underlying felony, violation of section 243, 

subdivision (d), was a serious felony. 

 In July 2014, the trial court held a hearing on the resentencing petition. The 

court found that Davis was not eligible for relief, and granted the prosecution’s motion to 

dismiss his petition for resentencing. 

DISCUSSION 

 A review of the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and 

Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issue raised by appellate counsel, has 

disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. 

DISPOSITION 

 The judgment is affirmed. 

 O’LEARY, P. J. 

WE CONCUR: 

FYBEL, J. 

IKOLA, J.