Court Opinion

ID: 9385452
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-06 18:03:03.16862+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:01.928760
License: Public Domain

Filed 4/6/23 P. v. Thompson CA4/2
See Dissenting Opinion

                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                      E080049

 v.                                                                       (Super.Ct.No. INF032358)

 BRANDEN MARTEL THOMPSON,                                                 OPINION

           Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. John D. Molloy, Judge.

Affirmed.

         Jennifer A. Gambale, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant

and Appellant.

         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                                       STATEMENT OF THE CASE

         On May 21, 2001, defendant and appellant Branden Martel Thompson was

convicted after a jury trial of a single count of attempted murder and other offenses. The

                                                              1
jury found that the attempted murder was deliberate and premeditated. We affirmed the

judgment on appeal in a nonpublished opinion. (People v. Thompson (Aug. 8, 2002,

E029836) [nonpub. opn.].)

       On June 3, 2022, defendant filed a pro se petition for resentencing pursuant to

section 1172.6.1 The trial court appointed counsel for the defendant and set a status

conference. At the status conference, the prosecution made an oral motion to dismiss the

petition. The court summarily denied the petition, stating that “defendant is statutorily

ineligible.” Defendant timely appealed.

                              STATEMENT OF FACTS 2

       In June 1999, Jose Luis Garcia Cervantes, Sr. (Cervantes) lived with his family in

a primarily African-American neighborhood. On June 1, 1999, Jose Garcia, Jr. (Garcia)

and his wife went to his father’s house for a visit. During the visit, defendant and two

other African-American males approached Garcia and his brother as they stood in front

of their father’s house. One of three men yelled out, “You Mexican[s], you guys

shouldn’t live here. You should get out of here.” Defendant also said, “Wetbacks, you

shouldn’t be living here.”

       Defendant initially swung at Jose, and a scuffle between them ensued. Several

others joined in, including defendant’s friends and Garcia’s father and brothers.

       1 Assembly Bill No. 200 (Reg. Sess. 2021-2022) renumbered former
section 1170.95 as section 1172.6. (See Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) For clarity and
consistency, we refer to section 1172.6 throughout this opinion.

       2
       The facts are taken from our opinion on appeal. (People v. Thompson, supra,
E029836.)

                                             2
Defendant and his friends picked up various objects from the ground, including rocks,

tools, bottles, and even a bicycle, and threw them at Garcia and his family. One of

defendant’s companions hit Garcia’s disabled brother with a hammer and a rock. To

defend his son, Garcia’s father, Cervantes, threw the rock back at them causing the

attackers to disband. As defendant ran away, he threatened to come back and kill

someone.

       Cervantes went back to reading his magazine in his truck, which was parked near

the house. A few minutes later, defendant returned in a truck, which was driven by

another person, and stopped in front of the house. Defendant then opened the passenger

side door, aimed his semi-automatic rifle, and fired several shots at Cervantes’s truck and

house. Some of the shots, including the first round, were directed at Cervantes.

Cervantes was shot four times. He had permanent injuries, including a leg injury that

required the use of a cane.

       Inside the house, Cervantes’s wife called the police.

       During a subsequent police interview, defendant admitted that he went to his

house, retrieved a semi-automatic rifle, loaded it, drove back to Garcia’s house, and fired

several rounds at the house. Defendant explained that he took action because one of his

companions was injured by a rock and he himself was almost hit.

       On August 9, 1999, after his arrest and release on bail, defendant and Cervantes

noticed each other as they were driving their vehicles near Cervantes’s house. As

defendant slowly passed by, he took out a rifle and fired it into the air.

                                              3
                                       DISCUSSION

       After defendant appealed, and upon his request, this court appointed counsel to

represent him. Counsel filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25

Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 setting forth a statement of the

case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues, and requesting that this court

undertake a review of the entire record. Pursuant to Anders, counsel identified the

following issue to assist the court in its search of the record for error: “Did the lower

court err when it summarily denied [defendant’s] petition for resentencing and found him

statutorily ineligible for relief?” (All capitals omitted.) Counsel also filed a declaration

stating that she provided the defendant with a copy of the brief and the record and

advised him that he may personally file a supplemental brief raising any issues he

chooses to call to our attention. We issued an order granting the defendant personally

30 days to file any supplemental brief he may deem necessary.

       Shortly thereafter, the California Supreme Court decided People v. Delgadillo,

holding that appellate courts are not required to independently review the record for

potential errors in an appeal from the denial of postconviction relief under section 1172.6,

except to evaluate any issues that may be raised by the defendant in a supplemental letter

or brief. (People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 229 (Delgadillo).) The Supreme

Court further stated that “if the appellate court wishes, it may also exercise its discretion

to conduct its own independent review of the record in the interest of justice.” (Id. at

p. 230.)

                                              4
       We granted counsel’s motion for leave to file a supplemental brief regarding

Delgadillo. We then issued an order notifying defendant that this court is not required

to conduct an independent review of the record on appeal from the denial of a

section 1172.6 proceeding. The order granted the defendant personally 30 days to file his

own supplemental brief and explained that we will issue an opinion evaluating any

arguments presented in his supplemental brief. It also notified the defendant that failure

to timely file a supplemental brief may result in the dismissal of the appeal as abandoned.

No supplemental brief was filed.

       We have exercised our discretion to conduct our own independent review in the

interest of justice. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 228.)

       We have independently reviewed the record for potential error. We are satisfied

that defendant’s attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel, and no

arguable issue exists.

                                      DISPOSITION

       The order denying defendant’s petition is affirmed.

       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                                                  MILLER
                                                                                             J.
I concur:

McKINSTER
                Acting P. J.

                                              5
[People v. Thompson, E080049]

       RAPHAEL, J., Dissenting.

       I respectfully dissent because I would follow the procedure prescribed by our

Supreme Court in People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 231-232 and order this

postjudgment criminal appeal dismissed as abandoned because no issues are raised.

       There may be some case in which we would wish to engage in an independent

review of the record and issue an opinion, even where the defendant-appellant raises no

issues. But here there is no explanation for why we are reviewing this record, nor any

substantive reason offered for why we are affirming the trial court’s ruling.

       In fact, this is one of the many cases in which, as our Supreme Court recognized,

“appellate courts can often readily confirm that a defendant is ineligible for relief as a

matter of law without conducting an independent review of the entire record.” (People v.

Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 230.) The jury instructions show that the theory on

which Brandon Martel Thompson was tried and convicted of attempted murder was one

of “express malice aforethought, namely, a specific intent to kill unlawfully another

human being.” His jury was given no murder theory that has been addressed by Penal

Code section 1172.6. Nothing else in the record needs to be examined. I would dismiss

the case as abandoned and note that Thompson is ineligible for relief for this reason.

                                                                 RAPHAEL
                                                                                             J.

                                              1