Court Opinion

ID: 9545145
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:07:11.834828+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:14:57.486979
License: Public Domain

Filed 8/7/23 P. v. Woodson 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                                         (Butte)
                                                            ----

    THE PEOPLE,                                                                                C097866

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                     (Super. Ct. No. CM009513)

           v.

    DEMETRIUS PATRICK WOODSON,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Defendant Demetrius Patrick Woodson appeals from a postconviction
resentencing order under Penal Code former section 1171.1 (now section 1172.75).1
Appointed counsel for defendant asked this court to independently review the record
pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 to determine whether there are any
arguable issues on appeal. We have exercised our discretion to conduct such a review

1        Undesignated section references are to the Penal Code.

                                                             1
and will affirm the trial court’s order. (See, e.g., People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th
216, 231-232 (Delgadillo).)
                                       BACKGROUND
       In 1997, a jury found defendant guilty of one count each of first degree burglary
(§ 459), possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)),
and receiving stolen property. (§ 496, subd. (a).) The trial court found true two prior
serious felony enhancement allegations (§ 667, subd. (a)) and four prior prison term
enhancement allegations. (§ 667.5, subd. (b).) (People v. Woodson (June 21, 2021,
C079633) [nonpub. opn.].) The prosecution later dismissed the possession of a
controlled substance count.
       Defendant filed a petition for resentencing under Proposition 47, the Safe
Neighborhoods and Schools Act (enacted by the electorate Nov. 4, 2014). (People v.
Woodson, supra, C079633.) The trial court denied the petition. On appeal, this court
struck as unauthorized two of four prior prison term enhancements and affirmed the
denial without prejudice so that defendant could file another petition. (Ibid.)
       In 2022, after a review of its records, the trial court set defendant’s case for
resentencing under former section 1171.1. The prosecution conceded the two remaining
prior prison term enhancements should be stricken, but argued the court should not strike
the prior serious felony enhancements. Defendant did not submit any briefing or
documents in support of resentencing. The court entertained argument from the parties
and defendant made a statement about his rehabilitative efforts in prison. The court noted
the original sentencing court had denied defendant’s Romero2 motion and declined to
revisit that ruling, saying it was not in the interest of justice to strike the prior strike.
       The trial court struck the two prior prison term enhancements, saying they were
now legally invalid. The court reimposed a 25-year-to-life sentence on the burglary

2      People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497.

                                                 2
count and a second 25-year-to-life sentence on the receiving stolen property count, which
it stayed under section 654. The court reviewed the amendments to section 1385, noting
the number of enhancements and the overall length of the sentence weighed greatly in
favor of striking the two prior serious felony enhancements because both prior felonies
were dated and would result in a sentence of over 20 years. The court also recalculated
defendant’s custody credits. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
                                       DISCUSSION
       Defendant’s appointed counsel has asked this court to conduct an independent
review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal.
(People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of his right
to file a supplemental brief within 30 days from the date the opening brief was filed.
More than 30 days have passed and defendant has not filed a supplemental brief.
       In Wende, our Supreme Court held 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.” (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.” (Delgadillo, at p. 221.)
       In Delgadillo, our Supreme Court considered whether the Wende process applies
to a trial court’s order denying a petition for postconviction relief under section 1172.6
and concluded such procedures are not required. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp.
221-222.) While Delgadillo addressed the application of Wende’s review procedures in
the specific context of a postconviction relief order under section 1172.6, it explicitly
declined to apply its holding to other postconviction motions. (Delgadillo, at p. 231, fn. 5
[“[i]n this case, we are not deciding Wende’s application to other postconviction contexts,
which may present different considerations”].) As such, we will exercise our discretion
to conduct an independent review of defendant’s case for any arguable issues.

                                              3
       Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error
that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
                                      DISPOSITION
       The judgment is affirmed.

                                                       KRAUSE              , J.

We concur:

   RENNER                   , Acting P. J.

   BOULWARE EURIE , J.

                                             4