Court Opinion

ID: 9893413
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-26 21:03:48.767866+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:22.854889
License: Public Domain

Filed 10/26/23 P. v. Baskett CA4/2

                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

 THE PEOPLE,

          Plaintiff and Respondent,                                      E080215

 v.                                                                      (Super.Ct.No. FVA1001189)

 BRANDON KEITH BASKETT,                                                  OPINION

          Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Bridgid M.

McCann, Judge. Dismissed.

         William D. Farber, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                                                             1
       On July 6, 2011, a jury convicted defendant and appellant Brandon Keith Baskett

of murder (Pen. Code, § 187, count 1)1 and being a felon in possession of a firearm

(§ 12021, subd. (a)(1), count 5). The jury additionally found true the allegations that he

personally used a firearm. (§§ 12022.53, subd. (b), 12022.5, subd. (a).)2 The court

sentenced defendant to a term of imprisonment of 11 years plus 25 years to life.3

(Baskett I, supra, E054399; Baskett II, supra, E073937.)

       On May 30, 2019, defendant filed a form petition for resentencing pursuant to

former section 1170.95.4 After an evidentiary hearing on October 27, 2022, the trial

court denied the petition by written order, finding beyond a reasonable doubt that

defendant was the actual killer.

       On appeal, defendant’s appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v.

Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, and People v.

       1 All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code.

       2 We took judicial notice of our prior opinions from defendant’s appeals from the
original judgment (People v. Tucker et al. (July 26, 2013, E054399) [nonpub. opn.]
(Baskett I)) and of the summary denial of his former section 1170.95 petition (People v.
Baskett. (May 11, 2021, E073937) [nonpub. opn.] (Baskett II)), in which we reversed and
remanded the matter for an evidentiary hearing. The People attached Baskett I and
Baskett II to their response to defendant’s petition.

       3 The court later struck defendant’s prior prison term enhancement, reducing his
determinate term of imprisonment by one year.

       4 Effective June 30, 2022, Assembly Bill No. 200 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.)
amended and renumbered section 1170.95 as section 1172.6. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.)

                                             2
Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo),5 setting forth a statement of the case,

asserting that we must independently review the record for error, and identifying two

potentially arguable issues: (1) whether the court erred in determining that the evidence

was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was the actual killer or

was a major participant acting with reckless disregard for human life; and (2) whether

accomplice testimony implicating defendant was sufficiently corroborated.

       We gave defendant the opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief. We

noted that if he did not do so, we could dismiss the appeal; nevertheless, he has not filed

one. Under these circumstances, we have no obligation to independently review the

record for error. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th. at pp. 224-231.) Rather, we dismiss the

appeal. (Id. at pp. 231-232.)

       5 In Delgadillo, the California Supreme Court held that Wende and Anders
procedures do not apply in appeals from the denial of a section 1172.6 postjudgment
petition. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 224-226.) Appellate counsel contends that
because Delgadillo was an appeal from the denial of a section 1172.6 petition at the
prima facie stage, Wende and Anders procedures still apply to cases, like this one, in
which the court denied the petition at an evidentiary hearing. Thus, appellate counsel
asserts that we are required to conduct an independent review. We disagree. The court in
Delgadillo focused broadly on the applicable procedures when a defendant appeals an
order denying any request for postconviction relief, not narrowly on the denial of a
section 1172.6 petition at the prima facie stage. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at
pp. 224-231.)

                                             3
                                DISPOSITION

     The appeal is dismissed.

     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                               McKINSTER
                                                           Acting P. J.
We concur:

MILLER
                       J.

FIELDS
                       J.

                                     4