Court Opinion

ID: 9949859
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-12 19:06:48.749808+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:34:21.123054
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/12/24 P. v. Kramer CA2/6

   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

                         SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                         DIVISION SIX

 THE PEOPLE,                                                    2d Crim. No. B327142
                                                              (Super. Ct. No. BA435471)
      Plaintiff and Respondent,                                 (Los Angeles County)

 v.

 ANDREW H. KRAMER,

      Defendant and Appellant.

      Andrew H. Kramer appeals two post-conviction orders
denying his motions to correct or expunge information contained
in a 2018 probation report. We appointed counsel to represent
appellant. After an examination of the record, counsel filed an
opening brief raising no issues and requested we follow the
procedures set forth in People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216
(Delgadillo). Appellant filed a supplemental brief, in propria
persona, raising no issues of merit. We dismiss the appeal
because he appeals from non-appealable orders.
         FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
       Appellant was arrested in 2013 for a series of violent
crimes against a former business associate. Federal prosecutors
charged him with conspiracy to distribute marijuana in an
unrelated case in 2015. He was confined in county jail while the
state and federal cases were pending.
       Appellant pleaded guilty to the federal drug charges in
January of 2016 and received a 16-year sentence. He pleaded
guilty to certain state charges, including arson, stalking, and
assault, in July of 2018.1 Prosecutors dismissed charges of
attempted murder and conspiracy in exchange for his plea.
Appellant received a negotiated sentence of 33 years and four
months in state prison to be served concurrently with his federal
sentence. The trial court awarded him 1,984 days of credit for
time served: 974 days of actual custody credit credits and the
same number of conduct credits. It denied custody credits for the
time appellant spent in county jail between his sentencing in the
federal and state cases, about two and a half years, citing In re
Rojas (1979) 23 Cal.3d 152 (Rojas). We affirmed the denial order
on appeal. (People v. Kramer (Jul. 27, 2021, B304830) [nonpub.
opn.], review denied Oct. 13, 2021, S270688 (Kramer I.).)
       This appeal concerns the trial court’s denial of two
subsequent post-conviction motions filed by appellant: (1) a
“motion to correct probation report” dated September 21, 2022
and denied on September 22, 2022 (September 21 motion); and

      1 Appellant pleaded guilty to two counts of stalking (Pen.

Code, § 646.9, subd. (a)), six counts of arson of a structure (Id.,
§ 451, subd. (c)), two counts of assault by means likely to produce
great bodily injury (Id., § 245, subd. (a)(4)), and one count of
attempted arson (Id., § 455).

                                 2
(2) a “motion for correction/expungement of erroneous
information in probation report and discovery” dated December 8,
2022 and denied on the same date (December 8 motion).2 The
record contains a copy of the first motion but not the second. The
minute orders provide our only insight into the trial court’s
rulings.
       The September 22 order simply states: “[M]otion to correct
probation report, filed September 21, 2022, read and considered.
[¶] Defendant’s motion is denied.” The December 8 minute order
includes more detail: “[M]otion for correction/expungement of
erroneous information in probation report and discovery, filed
December 8, 2022, read and considered. [¶] Defendant,
admittedly not a youthful offender, likens his motion as a request
for a “Franklin” hearing (People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261
[Franklin)]. Nowhere in the motion does he address the issue of
discovery. A similar motion, to correct ‘erroneous information’
was denied on September 22, 2022. [¶] Defendant appears to
merely deny items appearing in the probation report. [¶] His
motion is, again, denied.”
                           DISCUSSION
       Appellant is not entitled to our independent review of the
record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, or its
federal constitutional counterpart, Anders v. California (1967)
386 U.S. 738, because he appeals an order denying postconviction
relief rather than his underlying criminal conviction. (Delgadillo,

      2 Appellant’s notice of appeal dated October 14, 2022 and

filed on October 31 concerns the September 22 denial. His notice
of appeal dated December 19, 2022 and filed on January 4, 2023
concerns the December 8 denial. We consider both here.

                                3
supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 221-222, 230; see People v. Kelly (2006)
40 Cal.4th 106, 119 [independent judicial review mandated by
Anders applies only to first appeal as of right]; People v. Serrano
(2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496, 503.) He is nevertheless entitled to
our consideration of the contentions raised in his supplemental
brief. (See Delgadillo, at p. 232; Serrano, at p. 503.)
       Appellant’s supplemental brief describes this appeal as “a
simple request to correct errors in a Probation Officer’s Report.”
He contends the report contains false or inaccurate information
about, among other things, the scope of his involvement in the
charged crimes and the severity of harm suffered by the victims.
The supplemental brief does not articulate the legal basis of his
request. The record provides some insight, however. The
September 21 motion asserted the trial court “retains jurisdiction
to correct erroneous information in his probation report under
Penal Code [s]ection 1203.01, as interpreted by In re Cook (2019)
7 Cal.5th 439; also People v. Crites [(2022)] 77 Cal.App.5th 494,
499.” The minute order from December 8 states appellant
likened the second motion to “a request for a [Franklin] hearing.”
       Penal Code section 1203.01, subdivision (a) authorizes a
sentenced defendant to submit a “brief statement” on “[his] views
respecting [himself] and the crime of which [he was] convicted.”
The procedure is not a means for convicted defendants to purge
the record of all purported falsities or inaccuracies, or to hold a
Franklin-type hearing at which the trial court must generate and
collect evidence for the defendant to use in future Board
proceedings. It does not authorize the court to compel any person
or entity, including the Department of Probation, to alter,
reissue, remove, or otherwise correct documents contained within
the defendant’s record of conviction. The orders denying

                                 4
appellant’s motions, it follows, did not affect his substantial
rights and are not appealable. (People v. Hodges (2023) 92
Cal.App.5th 186, 190.)
                           DISPOSITION
      The appeal is dismissed.
      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                      CODY, J.

We concur:

      YEGAN, Acting P. J.

      BALTODANO, J.

                                  5
                    Ronald S. Coen, Judge
             Superior Court County of Los Angeles
               ______________________________

     David R. Greifinger, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
     No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                              6