California Court of Appeal Nov 1, 2022 No. E079253Unpublished
Filed 11/1/22 P. v. Young CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E079253
v. (Super. Ct. No. FCH02413)
ZURI S. K. YOUNG, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Steve C. Malone,
Judge. Affirmed.
Gerald J. Miller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
I.
INTRODUCTION
This is defendant and appellant Zuri S. K. Young’s fourth appeal in this matter,
attempting to recall his indeterminate 25-year-to-life sentence pursuant to Penal Code
1
section 1170, subdivisions (c) and (d)(1) and Penal Code section 1170.1226. 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 (Anders), requesting this court to conduct an
independent review of the record. In addition, defendant has had an opportunity to file a
supplemental brief with this court and has done so. We find no error and affirm the order
denying defendant’s petition for recall of sentence.
II. 1 PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In May 1998, a jury found defendant guilty of one count of battery by a prisoner 2 on a non-confined person under Penal Code section 4501.5. After a subsequent bench
trial, the trial court found true that defendant had suffered prior strike convictions for four
counts of attempted murder under sections 664 and 187, and one count of robbery under
section 211, all of which were violent or serious felonies under section 667, subdivisions
(b) through (i). The trial court denied defendant’s motion to strike his prior strike
convictions, and sentenced defendant to a term of 25 years to life in state prison.
In his first appeal, defendant appealed from the trial court’s denial of his petition
for resentencing under section 1170.126, known as the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012
1 The factual background of the underlying conviction is not relevant to this appeal. The procedural background is taken verbatim from our nonpublished opinion in defendant’s prior appeal in case No. E070967 unless otherwise indicated. (See People v. Young (Nov. 13, 2008, E070967) [nonpub. opn.] (Young III).) 2 All future statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2
(Prop. 36, as approved by voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 6, 2012)). (See People v. Young (Mar.
granted Oct. 14, 2020, S264278; People v. Figueras (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 108, review
granted May 12, 2021, S267870; People v. Scott (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 1127, 1131,
6
review granted Mar. 17, 2021, S266853.) Some cases have explained that we have
discretion to review the record independently for arguable issues, either where an initial
review does not show the defendant is obviously ineligible for relief or as a routine
matter. (See People v. Gallo (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 594, 598-599; People v. Flores
(2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 266, 269-274.)
In this case, because defendant filed a supplemental brief, we will conduct a
Wende review of the order denying his fourth petition for recall of sentence. For the
reasons explained by the trial court, we find that the court did not err in denying
defendant’s fourth petition for recall of sentence pursuant to section 1170, subdivision
(c)(d)(1), and section 1170.126. We reject defendant’s unsupported claims on appeal,
and note that defendant is estopped from relitigating issues resolved with finality in his
prior appeals.
An appellate court conducts a review of the entire record to determine whether the
record reveals any issues which, if resolved favorably to defendant would result in
reversal or modification of the judgment. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442;
People v. Feggans (1967) 67 Cal.2d 444, 447-448; Anders, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 744; see
People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109-112.)
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have
reviewed the entire record for potential error and find no arguable error that would result
in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
7
IV.
DISPOSITION
The postjudgment order denying defendant’s fourth petition for recall is affirmed .
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
CODRINGTON J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ P. J.
SLOUGH J.
8
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the defendant's fourth petition for recall of sentence, finding no error in the lower court's determination that the defendant was ineligible for relief.
Issues
Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant's petition for recall of sentence under Penal Code section 1170 and section 1170.126.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“We find no error and affirm the order denying defendant’s petition for recall of sentence.”
“For the reasons explained by the trial court, we find that the court did not err in denying defendant’s fourth petition for recall of sentence pursuant to section 1170, subdivision (c)(d)(1), and section 1170.126.”