California Court of Appeal May 6, 2021 No. E076253Unpublished
Filed 5/6/21 P. v. Taylor CA4/2 See dissenting opinion.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E076253
v. (Super.Ct.No. FSB1205378)
SHARIFF TAYLOR, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. R. Glenn Yabuno,
Judge. Affirmed.
C. Matthew Missakian, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On March 1, 2013, an information charged defendant and appellant Shariff Taylor
with murder under Penal Code section 187, subdivision (a) (count 1) and forcible rape
under Penal Code section 261, subdivision (a)(2). The complaint also alleged that the
crimes were serious and violent felonies. Moreover, the complaint alleged that defendant
constitutional underpinnings do not apply to appeals from the denial of postconviction
relief”].) We respectfully disagree.
6
We agree with another panel of this court, which recently held that in uncontested
appeals from the denial of a Penal Code 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 (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, 269
Cal.Rptr.3d 570 [“[W]e 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. We are satisfied that defendant’s
attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issue
exists. (Id. at p. 126; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 41-442.)
DISPOSITION
The appeal is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER J. I concur:
RAMIREZ P. J.
7
[People v. Taylor, E076253]
Slough, J., Dissenting.
I dissent because I would dismiss this appeal by order as abandoned. (People v. Scott
(2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 1127, 1128-1129, review granted Mar. 17, 2021, S266853.) I believe we
waste judicial resources when we exercise our discretion to review the record and draft an
opinion in cases like this—where neither counsel nor appellant can identify any arguable error
and appellant’s ineligibility for relief is patently obvious from the record of conviction.
SLOUGH
1
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, concluding after an independent review of the record that the defendant was the actual killer and no arguable issues existed.
Issues
Do the procedural protections of Anders and Wende apply to an appeal from a trial court’s order denying a defendant’s petition under Penal Code section 1170.95?
Even if the protections of Anders/Wende do not apply, should the court conduct an independent review of the record in the interests of justice?
Where appellant never personally waived a right to be present, was he denied such a right?
Whether informal briefing satisfies the procedural requirements of Penal Code section 1170.95?
Disposition. affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“The court denies the request for relief, finds that [defendant] is ineligible. He was, in fact, the actual killer in this matter, and therefore is not entitled to relief under the Code.”
“we can and should independently review the record on appeal in the interests of justice.”
“We are satisfied that defendant’s attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issue exists.”