Court Opinion

ID: 9894414
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-01 19:04:59.557476+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:50.868095
License: Public Domain

Filed 11/1/23 P. v. Threat 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                 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                                          D081914

           Plaintiff and Respondent,

           v.                                                         (Super. Ct. No. SCD169476)

 BYRON THREAT,

           Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
David M. Gill, Judge. Affirmed.
         Byron Threat, in pro. per.; and James R. Bostwick, under appointment
by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
         In 2003, Byron Threat pleaded guilty to one count of first degree

murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187, subd. (a)) committed during the commission of a
residential burglary. He also admitted a prior serious felony conviction, both
as a five-year prior and a prior strike (§ 667, subds. (a)(1) and (b)-(i)). The

1        All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
remaining charges and allegations were dismissed as part of the plea
agreement.
      As part of his change of plea, Threat admitted, both orally and in
writing, under oath, that he killed the victim.
      Threat was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 55 years to life in
prison.
      In 2021, Threat filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6
(formerly section 1170.95). The court appointed counsel, received briefing,
and held a hearing. The court found the record showed Threat was the actual
killer of the victim. He was not prosecuted as an aider and abettor but was
convicted for his own act of killing the victim. The court determined Threat
was not eligible for relief under section 1172.6 as a matter of law and
therefore denied the petition.
      Threat filed a timely notice of appeal.
      Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo
(2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo) indicating counsel has not been able to
identify any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel
asks the court to exercise its discretion to independently review the record for
error. The court in Delgadillo granted the appellate courts the discretion to
review appeals from post judgment orders, like this case, in the same fashion
as we do with appeals, which are subject to review under People v. Wende
(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We exercise that discretion in this case and
will follow Wende procedure in reviewing this appeal.
      We notified Threat he could file his own brief on appeal. He has
responded with 38 pages of briefing on a wide range of issues, which largely
do not relate to the merits of the present order. We will discuss his
submission below.

                                       2
                           STATEMENT OF FACTS
      Threat filed a written change of plea in which he admitted he killed the
victim during a residential burglary.
                                 DISCUSSION
      As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Delgadillo brief and
asks the court to independently review the record for error. We have
reviewed the record as we would do under the familiar Wende procedure. We
have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.
      We have also reviewed Threat’s lengthy submission, much of his focus
is on his guilty plea. He claims he was under duress and did not understand
he was admitting he was the actual killer. Threat posits someone else could
have killed the victim, although the record shows he was the sole perpetrator.
      Threat contends he is eligible for relief under section 1172.6 even if he
is the actual killer, which is of course inconsistent with the language in
Senate Bill Nos. 1437 and 775. He appears to argue that his form petition
alleges he could not be convicted for this offense and that allegation should be
enough to require an evidentiary hearing.
      Threat’s briefing has not raised any arguable issues for reversal of the
trial court’s specific order in this case. His original conviction and sentence
are not the subject of the current appeal and his complaints about his
conviction are not properly before us.
      Competent counsel has represented Threat on this appeal.

                                         3
                               DISPOSITION
      The order denying Threat’s petition for resentencing under section
1172.6 is affirmed.

                                                    HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

O’ROURKE, J.

BUCHANAN, J.

                                      4