People v. Baskett CA4/2 ( 2023 )

Filed 10/26/23 P. v. Baskett 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, E080215
v. (Super.Ct.No. FVA1001189)
BRANDON KEITH BASKETT, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Bridgid M.
McCann, Judge. Dismissed.
William D. Farber, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
On July 6, 2011, a jury convicted defendant and appellant Brandon Keith Baskett
of murder (Pen. Code, § 187, count 1)1 and being a felon in possession of a firearm
(§ 12021, subd. (a)(1), count 5). The jury additionally found true the allegations that he
personally used a firearm. (§§ 12022.53, subd. (b), 12022.5, subd. (a).)2 The court
sentenced defendant to a term of imprisonment of 11 years plus 25 years to life.3
(Baskett I, supra, E054399; Baskett II, supra, E073937.)
On May 30, 2019, defendant filed a form petition for resentencing pursuant to
former section 1170.95.4 After an evidentiary hearing on October 27, 2022, the trial
court denied the petition by written order, finding beyond a reasonable doubt that
defendant was the actual killer.
On appeal, defendant’s appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v.
Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, and People v.
1 All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code.
2 We took judicial notice of our prior opinions from defendant’s appeals from the
original judgment (People v. Tucker et al. (July 26, 2013, E054399) [nonpub. opn.]
(Baskett I)) and of the summary denial of his former section 1170.95 petition (People v.
Baskett. (May 11, 2021, E073937) [nonpub. opn.] (Baskett II)), in which we reversed and
remanded the matter for an evidentiary hearing. The People attached Baskett I and
Baskett II to their response to defendant’s petition.
3 The court later struck defendant’s prior prison term enhancement, reducing his
determinate term of imprisonment by one year.
4 Effective June 30, 2022, Assembly Bill No. 200 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.)
amended and renumbered section 1170.95 as section 1172.6. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.)
2
Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo),5 setting forth a statement of the case,
asserting that we must independently review the record for error, and identifying two
potentially arguable issues: (1) whether the court erred in determining that the evidence
was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was the actual killer or
was a major participant acting with reckless disregard for human life; and (2) whether
accomplice testimony implicating defendant was sufficiently corroborated.
We gave defendant the opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief. We
noted that if he did not do so, we could dismiss the appeal; nevertheless, he has not filed
one. Under these circumstances, we have no obligation to independently review the
record for error. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th. at pp. 224-231.) Rather, we dismiss the
appeal. (Id. at pp. 231-232.)
5 In Delgadillo, the California Supreme Court held that Wende and Anders
procedures do not apply in appeals from the denial of a section 1172.6 postjudgment
petition. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 224-226.) Appellate counsel contends that
because Delgadillo was an appeal from the denial of a section 1172.6 petition at the
prima facie stage, Wende and Anders procedures still apply to cases, like this one, in
which the court denied the petition at an evidentiary hearing. Thus, appellate counsel
asserts that we are required to conduct an independent review. We disagree. The court in
Delgadillo focused broadly on the applicable procedures when a defendant appeals an
order denying any request for postconviction relief, not narrowly on the denial of a
section 1172.6 petition at the prima facie stage. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at
pp. 224-231.)
3
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER
Acting P. J.
We concur:
MILLER
J.
FIELDS
J.
4