California Court of Appeal Apr 29, 2022 No. E078227Unpublished
Filed 4/29/22 P. v. Jennings 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E078227
v. (Super.Ct.No. RIF110437)
ALEX JENNINGS III, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. John D. Molloy, Judge.
Affirmed.
James R. Bostwick, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d
436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of
facts, a statement of the case, and requesting this court conduct an independent review of
the record. We have independently reviewed the record for any potential error and find
was convicted, so the provisions provide no basis for sealing and destroying his arrest
records. (Jennings also cited Pen. Code § 1203, which does not authorize the sealing or
destruction of arrest records.)
There is no need to review the entire record hunting for issues, as this is not the
“first appeal as of right.” (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 986). We also should not
generate an opinion for every uncontested, frivolous appeal. We should instead follow
1
the prevailing rule and dismiss the appeal as abandoned. (See People v. Serrano (2012)
211 Cal.App.4th 496, 504; People v. Scott (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 1127, 1130-1131.)
If Jennings raised an argument, we would be required to adjudicate the matter in
an opinion. (See Cal. Const., art. VI, § 14.) But there is no argument before us. The
uncommon motion (or “correspondence”) that Jennings made in trial court illustrates the
hodgepodge of post-judgment appeals that we see, and it should also illustrate that it is
pointless and wasteful to review records and issue opinions in uncontested appeals that
we can see are frivolous. As our Supreme Court has told us: “Nothing is served by
requiring a written opinion when the court does not actually decide any contested issues.”
(Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529, 544.)
Because we should dismiss this uncontested appeal, I therefore respectfully
dissent.
RAPHAEL J.
2
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the denial of the defendant's petition to seal and destroy arrest records, finding no arguable issues after conducting an independent review of the record.
Issues
Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant's petition to seal and destroy arrest records under Penal Code sections 851.91 and 1203.4.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“We have independently reviewed the record for any potential error and find no arguable issues. We, therefore, affirm.”
“The order denying defendant’s petition is affirmed.”