Court Opinion

ID: 9952781
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-20 19:03:20.856906+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:44:39.624538
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/20/24 P. v. Vanhook CA3
                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                       THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                                    (San Joaquin)
                                                            ----

 THE PEOPLE,                                                                                   C097552

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                         (Super. Ct. Nos.
                                                                                  STKCRFE20150006194 &
           v.                                                                           SF131278A)

 RAESEAN VANHOOK,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Defendant Raesean Vanhook appeals from an order denying a petition for
resentencing under Penal Code former section 1170.95 (now § 1172.6).1 Appointed
counsel for defendant asks this court to independently review the record pursuant to
People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 to determine whether there any arguable issues on

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. Effective June 30, 2022,
section 1170.95 was renumbered section 1172.6 without change in the text. (See Stats.
2022, ch. 58, § 10.) We use the current section number in this opinion.

                                                             1
appeal. We have exercised our discretion to conduct such a review and affirm the trial
court’s order. (See, e.g., People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 231-232.)
                                     BACKGROUND
       In 2014, defendant fired a shotgun in a struggle with one of three men defendant
and his accomplices surprised when they snuck into a garage through a partially opened
garage door. A jury convicted defendant of attempted murder (§§ 664, 187) and other
charges not relevant to this appeal, and also found multiple firearm enhancements true.
The trial court found true a prior strike and two enhancements. (§ 667, subd. (b).) The
court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of 43 years in prison. (Ibid.) We
affirmed. (People v. Vanhook (Aug. 1, 2018, C080735) [nonpub. opn.].) In a separate
appeal, we modified the judgment to find that defendant suffered only one prior serious
felony enhancement (§ 667, subd. (a)). (People v. Vanhook (Nov. 17, 2021, C090019)
[nonpub. opn.].)
       In April 2022, defendant filed a form petition for resentencing under section
1172.6. Defendant alleged that he was prosecuted and convicted of attempted murder
under the natural and probable consequences doctrine. The trial court appointed the
public defender to represent defendant. The People filed a response arguing that the jury
found defendant guilty as the direct perpetrator who specifically intended to kill the
person he shot at. Defendant filed a reply arguing that he had established a prima facie
case for relief since the charging document allowed the prosecution to proceed under the
natural and probable consequences doctrine.
       The trial court conducted a hearing on defendant’s prima facie eligibility for relief
under section 1172.6. At the hearing, the trial court noted that it had reviewed the jury
instructions and the verdicts. After argument by counsel for the parties, the court denied
the petition. In ruling, the court explained that “we have an adequate record here . . . that
shows no jury instructions were given on a natural and probable consequences theory or
aiding and abetting. And the defendant was prosecuted under a specific intent to kill.

                                              2
And there’s undisputed facts that he was the shooter. [¶] So the [c]ourt finds that the
defendant has failed to make a prima facie showing, and he is not entitled to resentencing
under Penal Code Section 1172.6.”
       Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
                                         DISCUSSION
       Defendant’s appointed counsel asks this court to independently review the record
to determine whether any arguable issues on appeal existed. (People v. Wende, supra,
25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel advised defendant of his right to file a supplemental brief within
30 days from date of the filing of the opening brief. That time has elapsed without
defendant filing a supplemental brief.
       Our Supreme Court held in Wende that “Courts of Appeal must conduct a review
of the entire record whenever appointed counsel submits a brief on direct appeal which
raises no specific issues or describes the appeal as frivolous.” (People v. Delgadillo,
supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 221.) The Wende procedure applies “to the first appeal as of right
and is compelled by the constitutional right to counsel under the Fourteenth Amendment
of the United States Constitution.” (Ibid.)
       In Delgadillo, the Supreme Court considered whether Wende review is
constitutionally required when a trial court denies a petition for postconviction relief
under section 1172.6, and it concluded Wende review is not required. (People v.
Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 221-222.) Nevertheless, the Supreme Court
exercised its discretion to conduct an independent review of the record, because the
defendant had not been notified that his appeal might be dismissed as abandoned if he did
not file a supplemental brief. (Id. at pp. 222, 233.)
       Here, defendant was not notified that his appeal might be dismissed as abandoned
if he did not file a supplemental brief. Accordingly, we exercise our discretion to
conduct an independent review of the record. Having undertaken an examination of the
entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable

                                              3
to defendant.
                                    DISPOSITION
      The order denying defendant’s section 1172.6 petition is affirmed.

                                                /s/
                                               MESIWALA, J.

We concur:

 /s/
MAURO, Acting P. J.

 /s/
BOULWARE EURIE, J.

                                           4