People v. Smith CA4/3

Filed 6/6/25 P. v. Smith CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G063885

v. (Super. Ct. No. C-43614)

LARRY DONALD SMITH, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Richard M. King, Judge. Affirmed. Charles Thomas Anderson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

In 1980, a jury found Larry Donald Smith guilty of murder and kidnapping. The jury found true an allegation that the victim, Carolyn Bealer, suffered bodily harm, and found true a murder during a kidnapping special circumstances enhancement. The trial court sentenced Smith to life in prison without the possibility of parole. In 2021, Smith filed a petition seeking to vacate his murder conviction under former Penal Code section 1170.95 (now Pen. Code, 1 § 1172.6). In 2024, after presiding over an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the section 1172.6 petition. In this appeal, appointed appellate counsel filed a brief raising no arguable issues. (See People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 230 (Delgadillo).) However, counsel identified one issue to assist the court in conducting its independent review: “Does substantial evidence support the trial court’s finding that appellant is guilty of murder under current law?” (Boldface omitted.) (See Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738.) Smith has not filed a supplemental brief on his own behalf. In the interests of justice, this court independently reviewed the record and found no arguable issues. (See Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 230 [“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”].)