California Court of Appeal Mar 10, 2021 No. E075804Unpublished
Filed 3/10/21 P. v. Loza CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E075804
v. (Super.Ct.No. FSB1305304)
TOMMY RAY LOZA, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Steve C. Malone,
Judge. Affirmed.
Matthew A. Siroka, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
Defendant and appellant, Tommy Ray Loza, filed a petition for resentencing
pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95,1 which the court denied. After defense counsel
filed a notice of appeal, this court appointed counsel to represent defendant.
Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d
436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case
and identifying two potentially arguable issues: whether section 1170.95 relief is
available to defendants convicted of voluntary manslaughter and whether section 1170.95
[“Wende’s constitutional underpinnings do not apply to appeals from the denial of
postconviction relief.”].) We respectfully disagree.
We agree with another panel of this court, which recently held that in uncontested
appeals from the denial of a section 1170.95 petition, “we can and should independently
review the record on appeal in the interests of justice.” (People v. Gallo (2020)
57 Cal.App.5th 594, 599 (but see dis. opn. of Menetrez, J.); accord People v. Flores
(2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 266, 269 [“[W]hen an appointed counsel files a Wende brief in an
appeal from a summary denial of a section 1170.95 petition, a Court of Appeal is not
required to independently review the entire record, but the court can and should do so in
the interests of justice.”]; see People v. Allison (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 449, 456 [“[W]e
4
have the discretion to review the record in the interests of justice.”].) This procedure
provides defendants an added layer of due process while consuming comparatively little
in judicial resources. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106,
we have independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no arguable
issues.
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER Acting P. J. We concur:
MILLER J.
FIELDS J.
5
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the denial of the defendant's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95 after finding no arguable issues upon independent review of the record.
Issues
Whether section 1170.95 relief is available to defendants convicted of voluntary manslaughter.
Whether section 1170.95 relief is available to defendants charged with murder under the provocative act doctrine.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no arguable issues.”