People v. Harrison CA4/2 ( 2024 )

Filed 1/23/24 P. v. Harrison 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, E082037
v. (Super.Ct.No. RIF1405852)
DAVID JAMES HARRISON, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Jorge C. Hernandez,
Judge. Dismissed
Elizabeth Campbell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
On April 12, 2017, defendant and appellant David James Harrison pled guilty to
unlawful possession of a firearm. (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1), count 2.)1 On May
3, 2017, a jury convicted defendant of murder. (§ 187, count 1.) Defendant was found
to have suffered two prior serious felony convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)) and two prior
strike convictions (§§ 667, subds. (c), (e)(2)(A), 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)(a)). Defendant
thereafter admitted he had suffered five prior prison terms. (§ 667.5, subd. (b).) The
court struck the prior strike convictions and imposed but stayed sentence on the prior
prison term enhancements.2 The court sentenced defendant to an indeterminate term of
imprisonment of 35 years to life. (Bennett, supra, E072435.)
On June 22, 2023, defendant filed a form petition for resentencing pursuant to
section 1172.6. After a hearing on August 25, 2023, at which defendant was represented
by counsel, the trial court denied the petition.
After defense counsel filed a notice of appeal, this court appointed counsel to
represent him. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo
(2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo), setting forth a statement of the case, requesting that
we exercise our discretion to independently review the record for error, and identifying
two potentially arguable issues: (1) whether defendant made a prima facie case for relief
1 All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code.
We take judicial notice of our prior nonpublished opinion from defendant’s appeal
from the original judgment in People v. Bennett et al. (May 4, 2021, E072435). (Evid.
Code, §§ 452, 459.)
2 On appeal from the judgment, we struck defendant’s prior prison term
enhancements. (Bennett, supra, E072435.)
2
where the jury was instructed on general aiding and abetting principles in conjunction
with an instruction on willful and deliberate premediated murder; and (2) whether the
record reflects that defendant is ineligible for section 1172.6 relief as a matter of law.
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.)
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER
J.
I concur:
FIELDS
J.
3
[P. v. David Harrison, E082037]
RAMIREZ, P. J., Dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. Our Supreme Court has afforded reviewing courts
discretion with respect to the disposition of postconviction appeals in which appointed
appellate counsel has filed a no-issues brief and defendant did not file a supplemental
brief. (People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 232.) For the reasons set forth in
People v. Griffin (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 329, I would exercise that discretion to conduct
an independent review of the record.
RAMIREZ
P. J.
1