Court Opinion

ID: 9954062
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-25 17:02:40.325426+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:11:48.176284
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/25/24 P. v. Shephard 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                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                      E082419

 v.                                                                      (Super.Ct.No. FSB036069)

 MATTHEW JOSEPH SHEPHARD,                                                OPINION

          Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. J. David Mazurek,

Judge. Dismissed.

         Richard Schwartzberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant

and Appellant.

         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

         On October 21, 2003, a jury found defendant and appellant Matthew Joseph

Shephard guilty of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a), count 1), second

degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459, count 3), negligent discharge of a firearm (Pen. Code,
                                                                  1
§ 246.3, court 4), and felonious evasion of a police officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2,

subd. (a), count 5). The trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of 25 years to life, plus

two years four months in state prison.1 (People v. Sheppard, supra, E036967; People v.

Shephard, supra, E076346.)

       On January 8, 2019, defendant filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal

Code former section 1170.95,2 which the court struck as unconstitutional. On appeal, we

reversed the order and remanded the matter for the trial court to consider whether

defendant had made a prima facie case for relief. (People v. Shephard, supra, E076346.)

       On October 3, 2023, after an evidentiary hearing spanning several days during

which the court heard the testimony of witnesses and considered the trial transcripts, the

court denied defendant’s petition.

       On appeal, defendant’s appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v.

Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo), setting forth a statement of the facts, a

statement of the case, requesting that we exercise our discretion to independently review

the record for error, and identifying two potentially arguable issues: (1) whether the

       1 By order dated February 26, 2024, we granted defendant’s request that we take
judicial notice of the record in defendant’s appeal from the judgment. (People v.
Sheppard (Nov. 28, 2005, E036967) [nonpub. opn.]). (Evid. Code, §§ 452, 459.) On our
own motion, we take judicial notice of the opinion from defendant’s appeal of the denial
of his former section 1170.95 petition, which appellate counsel cites in his brief. (People
v. Shephard (July 2, 2021, E076346) [nonpub. opn.]). As appellate counsel notes, there
is no explanation in the record for the discrepancy in the spelling of defendant’s last
name.

       2 Effective June 30, 2022, Assembly Bill No. 200 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.)
amended and renumbered section 1170.95 as section 1172.6. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.)
                                                 2
court erred in finding defendant’s motion to disqualify the court pursuant to Code of Civil

Procedure section 170.6. untimely; and (2) whether the court erred in determining

defendant was ineligible for relief.

       We gave defendant the opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief. We

noted that if he did not do so, we could dismiss the appeal; nevertheless, he has not filed

one. Under these circumstances, we have no obligation to independently review the

record for error. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th. at pp. 224-231.) Rather, we dismiss the

appeal. (Id. at pp. 231-232.)

                                       DISPOSITION

       The appeal is dismissed.

       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                                                McKINSTER
                                                                                              J.
I concur:

RAPHAEL
                           J.

                                                 3
[People v. Matthew Joseph Shephard, E082419]

RAMIREZ, P. J., Dissenting.

       I respectfully dissent. Our Supreme Court has afforded reviewing courts

discretion with respect to the disposition of postconviction appeals in which appointed

appellate counsel has filed a no-issues brief and defendant did not file a supplemental

brief. (People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 232.) For the reasons set forth in

People v. Griffin (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 329, 333-337, I would exercise that discretion to

conduct an independent review of the record before deciding the disposition of the

appeal.

                                                               RAMIREZ
                                                                                          P. J.

                                                1