Court Opinion

ID: 9840934
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-20 18:04:20.156836+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:29:59.124329
License: Public Domain

Filed 9/20/23 P. v. Taylor 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                 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                                          D081728

           Plaintiff and Respondent,

           v.                                                         (Super. Ct. No. FWV1503696)

 ANDRE LAMONT TAYLOR,

           Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Bernardino
County, Bridgid M. McCann, Judge. Affirmed.
         Andre Lamont Taylor, in pro. per.; and Leslie A. Rose, under
appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
         A jury convicted Andre Lamont Taylor of first degree murder (Pen.

Code,1 § 187, subd. (a)) and possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 29800,
subd. (a)(1)). The jury found Taylor personally discharged a firearm causing
death or great bodily injury to a victim (§ 12022.53, (subd. (d)). The court

1        All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
found true two strike priors (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)). Taylor was originally
sentenced to a term of 106 years to life in prison. Taylor appealed and this
court affirmed the convictions, but reversed the sentence and remanded the
case for possible retrial of the strike and serious felony priors in an
unpublished opinion. (People v. Taylor (Feb. 15, 2019, D074449).)
      Taylor’s sentence was reduced to a term of 53 years to life in prison.
      In 2022, Taylor filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6.
The court appointed counsel, received briefing, reviewed the record of
conviction and held a hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court
found Taylor was tried as the sole perpetrator and was the actual killer in
this case. The jury found he was the person who intentionally discharged the
firearm causing death. As the actual killer, the court found Taylor was not
eligible for resentencing under section 1172.6 as a matter of law. The court
denied the petition without issuing an order to show cause.
      Taylor 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 under the procedures of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).
We notified Taylor he could submit his own brief on appeal. Taylor
responded with a supplemental brief that does not discuss any potentially
meritorious issue that would challenge the trial court’s denial of the petition
for resentencing. Taylor raises a number of challenges to the underlying
conviction, which we have previously upheld on direct appeal. Taylor does
not challenge the finding he was the actual killer. Interestingly, he contends

                                        2
he shot the victim 12 times by accident. The fact some of the shots struck the
victim in the arms and legs shows he did not intend to kill.
      The validity of the convictions is not before this court on appeal from

the denial of his resentencing petition.2
                                  DISCUSSION
      As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Delgadillo. Counsel asks the court to independently review the record for
error. To assist the court in its review, and in an effort to comply with
Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified a
possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this
appeal: Whether the trial court properly denied appellant’s petition without
issuing an order to show cause.
      We have independently reviewed the record for error consistent with
Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any potentially meritorious
issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Taylor on
this appeal.

2    The facts of the offense were adequately discussed in our prior opinion.
We will not repeat the discussion here.
                                       3
                               DISPOSITION
      The order denying Taylor’s petition for resentencing under
section 1172.6 is affirmed.

                                                              HUFFMAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

IRION, J.

                                      4