Court Opinion

ID: 9892987
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-25 18:03:45.542402+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:51:29.343995
License: Public Domain

Filed 10/25/23 P. v. Morgans 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                 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                                          D082100

         Plaintiff and Respondent,

         v.                                                          (Super. Ct. No. SCD132068)

KENNETH MORGANS,

         Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Lisa R. Rodriguez, Judge. Affirmed.
         Athena Shudde, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
         In 1999, Kenneth Morgans was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison
following his conviction for sale of a controlled substance (Health and Saf.
Code, § 11352, subd. (a)) with two true findings for strike priors (Pen. Code,
§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)).
      Morgans appealed and this court affirmed the conviction but ordered
the trial court to strike the stayed prison priors (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). (People v.
Morgans (Mar. 10, 2000, D032805).)
      In 2023, Morgans filed a petition for resentencing under sections 1172.7
and 1172.75. The trial court summarily denied the petition without
appointing counsel. The court found Morgans was not eligible for
resentencing on this record. The court’s written order stated:
                “On March 27, 2023, Defendant filed a petition for
         resentencing pursuant to Penal Code [sections]
         1172.7/1172.75 (Senate Bill 483). It appears defendant
         does not qualify for relief under Senate Bill 483, as the
         sentence in the . . . case[ ] is not currently enhanced by an
         eligible prison prior pursuant to Penal Code [section]
         667.5(b) or an eligible prior drug conviction pursuant to
         Health & Safety Code [section] 11370.2 and is summarily
         denied. . . .

               “The court also notes there is no mechanism for the
         defendant to apply directly for relief, nor for the court to
         take action on its motion pursuant to Senate Bill 483.
         Penal Code [sections] 1172.7 and 1172.75 permit
         resentencing if the California Department of Corrections
         Rehabilitation (CDCR) identified a person in their custody
         as currently serving a prison term that includes an eligible
         prior. CDCR did not identify Defendant as such a person.

                “Defendant also seeks resentencing pursuant to
         Penal Code [section] 1172.1. The request for resentencing
         on those grounds is also summarily denied. Penal Code
         [section] 1172.1 permits the court to recall and resentence a
         defendant upon the recommendation of the California
         Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) or
         the Prosecution. There is nothing in the statute that
         permits the Defendant to petition the court directly. As
         such, this court has no jurisdiction to take any action as
         more than 120 days have passed since the original
         sentencing.

                                         2
               “Based on the above, the request for resentencing is
           summarily denied. . . .”

      Morgan filed a timely notice of appeal.
      Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating counsel has not been able to identify any
arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to
independently review the record for error as required by Wende. We offered
Morgans the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not
responded.
      We discussed the facts of the underlying offense in our earlier opinion.
We will not repeat that discussion here. (People v. Morgans, supra,
D032805.)
                                   DISCUSSION
      As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks
the court to review the record for error. To assist the court in its review, and
in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel
has identified two possible issues that were considered in evaluating the
potential merits of this appeal:
      1.     Whether Morgans’ petition stated grounds for relief.
      2.     Whether the trial court’s decision to deny the petition constituted
prejudicial error.
      We have reviewed the record for error consistent with the directions in
Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal
on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Morgans on this appeal.

                                        3
                              DISPOSITION
     The order denying Morgans’ petition for resentencing is affirmed.

                                                    HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

O’ROURKE, J.

CASTILLO, J.

                                     4