People v. Campos CA3

California Court of Appeal Oct 27, 2022 No. C095280Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court dismissed the defendant's appeal from the denial of a motion to remand his case to juvenile court, holding that the defendant was not entitled to Wende review for a postconviction order and that his judgment was final.

Issues

Whether a defendant is entitled to independent Wende review of the record on appeal from an order denying postconviction relief.
Whether the defendant was eligible for relief under Proposition 57 and Senate Bill No. 1391 given that his judgment was final.

Disposition. dismissed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“For the reasons we explain, this appeal shall be dismissed.”

“we follow the numerous intermediate courts that have agreed a defendant appealing from an order denying postconviction relief is not entitled to our independent review of the record pursuant to Wende.”

“given the procedural posture of defendant’s case, he was not entitled to the relief he sought.”

Filed 10/27/22 P. v. Campos CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ----

THE PEOPLE, C095280

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. STK-CR-FE- 2013-0006470) v.

DANIEL CAMPOS,

Defendant and Appellant.

This appeal comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). For the reasons we explain, this appeal shall be dismissed.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The People’s amended information charged defendant Daniel Campos with attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664/187;1 count 1), assault with a semiautomatic weapon (§ 245, subd. (b); count 2), and willful participation in a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (a); count 3). The amended information further alleged enhancements that included the use of a firearm (§ 12022.53, subds. (b)-(e)), infliction of great bodily injury (§ 12022.7), that the offense was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)), and that the murder was punishable by death and imprisonment for life and that defendant had been 14 years old at the time he committed the charged offenses. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 707, former subd. (d)(2)(a).) On February 19, 2015, defendant resolved this criminal matter by pleading guilty to attempted murder with a firearm enhancement and participation in a criminal street gang, as well as admitting the allegations under Welfare and Institutions Code former section 707. The remaining count and allegations were dismissed and/or stricken, and he received a prison sentence of 17 years 8 months. Defendant did not appeal this sentence, which became final in 2015 when the time to seek certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States passed. (See People v. Lizarraga (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 201, 206 (Lizarraga) [“A ‘judgment is not final until the time for petitioning for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court has passed.’ ”].) In November 2016, the electorate passed Proposition 57, which required prosecutors to seek approval from the juvenile court prior to trying juvenile offenders as adults. (People v. Superior Court (Lara) (2018) 4 Cal.5th 299, 305.) In Lara, our high court determined Proposition 57 applied “to all juveniles charged directly in adult court

People v. Campos CA3

AI Brief

THE PEOPLE, C095280

DANIEL CAMPOS,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief