People v. O'Neal CA2/4

California Court of Appeal Aug 15, 2022 No. B314193Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court dismissed the appeal as abandoned because the defendant, who was convicted as the actual killer, is not entitled to Wende review in an appeal from a postjudgment motion for resentencing and raised no cognizable claims of error.

Issues

Whether a defendant is entitled to independent Wende review in an appeal from the denial of a postjudgment petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6.
Whether the appeal should be dismissed when neither the appellant nor appointed counsel raises a cognizable claim of error.

Disposition. dismissed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Appellant is not entitled to Wende review, and we therefore dismiss the appeal pursuant to Serrano.”

“As this is an appeal from a motion for postjudgment relief, not a first appeal as a matter of right, appellant is not entitled to Wende review.”

“Because neither appellant nor his counsel has raised any claim of error, we dismiss the appeal as abandoned.”

Filed 8/15/22 P. v. O’Neal CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B314193

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NA031112) v.

JARROD LEE O’NEAL,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Laura L. Laesecke, Judge. Dismissed. Christopher Love, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION Appellant Jarrod Lee O’Neal appealed following the superior court’s denial of his resentencing petition under Penal Code former section 1170.95 (now § 1172.6).1 Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief on appeal raising no issues and invoking People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Because neither appellant nor his counsel raised a cognizable claim of error, we dismiss the appeal as abandoned. (People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496 (Serrano).) FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND We take the underlying facts from opinion affirming the underlying judgment, People v. O’Neal (Oct. 29, 1998) B112806 (nonpub. opn.)2: “On June 4, 1995, Willie Bullins, appellant’s brother, was leaving his apartment in Long Beach when six ‘guys,’ including Reginald Ford, Barry Moore, and Robert Hollie, confronted him. They demanded some property belonging to Ruthie Siverand, Moore’s sister and Hollie’s ex-wife. When Bullins denied that he had the property, the men hit him, grabbed him by the ankles, and tried to throw him over a second-story railing. Bullins then told them that he would take them to the property, and he led them to another apartment complex where appellant was located. Bullins told appellant what had happened, and appellant talked to Bullins’s antagonists for 15 or 20 minutes. When the police arrived, the antagonists dispersed.

People v. O'Neal CA2/4

AI Brief

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B314193

JARROD LEE O’NEAL,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

COLLINS, J.

MANELLA, P. J.

WILLHITE, J.

AI Brief