People v. Flores
44 Cal.App.5th 985
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background:
- In 2002 Alberto Flores was convicted by jury of murder, robbery, gang enhancement, and a personal-weapon allegation; he received a life sentence and his direct appeal was affirmed.
- In 2019 Flores filed a Penal Code §1170.95 petition claiming his murder conviction rested on felony-murder or the natural-and-probable-consequences (NPC) doctrine and thus he might be entitled to resentencing under SB 1437.
- The trial court summarily denied the §1170.95 petition, concluding the conviction was not based on felony-murder or NPC liability and Flores was therefore ineligible.
- On appeal appointed counsel filed a Wende brief raising no arguable issues; Flores did not file a supplemental brief.
- The Court of Appeal considered whether Anders/Wende independent-review procedures apply to postjudgment appeals from summary denials of §1170.95 petitions and whether the court should nonetheless review the record; the court reviewed the record and found no arguable issues, affirming the denial.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Anders/Wende requires independent review when counsel files a no-argue brief in a postjudgment appeal from a summary denial of a §1170.95 petition | Anders/Wende apply only to a defendant's first appeal as of right, so independent review is not constitutionally required here | Counsel invoked Wende, arguing the Court of Appeal must independently review the record | Not required because this is not a first appeal as of right, but the court may conduct an independent review in the interests of justice |
| Whether the appellate court may exercise inherent supervisory powers to independently review such appeals despite not being required | The court may dismiss the appeal as abandoned when no arguable issues are raised | The court should independently review to protect petitioner's liberty and avoid erroneous outcomes | The court has inherent authority and, given the liberty interests, can and should independently review when counsel files a Wende brief in these postjudgment §1170.95 appeals |
| Whether the trial court properly summarily denied the §1170.95 petition on the record | The record shows Flores was not eligible (conviction not based on felony-murder or NPC), so summary denial was proper | Flores contended his conviction fell within the categories SB 1437 narrowed, so he was eligible for further proceedings | After independent review the appellate court found no arguable issues affecting eligibility and affirmed the summary denial |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (establishes minimum constitutional standards for appointed counsel and court procedures when counsel finds no meritorious appellate issues)
- People v. Wende, 25 Cal.3d 436 (Cal. 1979) (California requires independent appellate review when appointed counsel files a no-issue brief in a first appeal as of right)
- Conservatorship of Ben C., 40 Cal.4th 529 (Cal. 2007) (Anders/Wende independent-review obligation limited to first appeals as of right)
- Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 (U.S. 1963) (if a state grants an appeal as of right, indigent defendants are entitled to appointed counsel for that one appeal)
- Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (U.S. 1963) (right to appointed counsel in criminal prosecutions)
- People v. Lewis, 43 Cal.App.5th 1128 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (discusses prima facie review requirement under §1170.95 and summary-denial standards)