People v. Jarvis CA4/1 ( 2023 )

Filed 12/19/23 P. v. Jarvis CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D081544
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD238601)
TERRENCE JARVIS,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Jeffrey F. Fraser, Judge. Affirmed.
Gene D. Vorobyov, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In 2014, a jury convicted Terrence Jarvis of one count of attempted
murder (Pen. Code,1 §§ 187, subd. (a), 664), two counts of robbery (§ 211), two
1 All undesignated statutory references herein are to the Penal Code.
counts of attempted robbery (§§ 211, 664), one count of assault by means
likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)), and one count of
shooting at an inhabited occupied structure (§ 246). The jury found the
attempted murder “was willful, deliberate and premeditated within the
meaning of Penal Code section 189.” The jury also found true multiple
sentence enhancement allegations, including that, in the commission of the
attempted murder, Jarvis had “personally inflicted great bodily injury upon
[the victim].” (See § 12022.7, subd. (a)). The trial court imposed an
aggregate indeterminate sentence of 60 years to life plus 45 years and an
aggregate determinate sentence of 64 years and four months.
On direct appeal in 2015, we concluded the trial court had erred in
imposing a five-year enhancement for each determinate term, instead of just
once as part of the aggregate determinate sentence. (People v. Jarvis (Oct.
29, 2015, D066240) [nonpub. opn.].)2 We remanded for resentencing of the
determinate terms but affirmed in all other respects. (Ibid.)
In 2022, Jarvis filed a petition for resentencing under section 1170.95.3
The trial court appointed counsel, reviewed the record of conviction, and held
a hearing. During the January 2023 hearing, the court found the record
demonstrated Jarvis had acted alone in personally inflicting great bodily
injury on the victim, which resulted in the conviction for attempted murder.
The court further found the record demonstrated Jarvis had acted with
premeditation. Thus, the court found Jarvis was not eligible for relief under
2 The facts relevant to Jarvis’s convictions are summarized in our
unpublished opinion.
3 Former section 1170.95 was renumbered as section 1172.6 without
substantive change on June 30, 2022. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) We shall
refer to the subject statute by its current number hereafter.
2
section 1172.6 as a matter of law. The court denied the petition for
resentencing without issuing an order to show cause. Jarvis appealed.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo
(2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo), indicating counsel has not been able to
identify any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel
asks the court to exercise its discretion and conduct an independent review of
the record for error, consistent with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436(Wende). We notified Jarvis of his right to file his own brief on appeal. He
has responded with a discussion of issues unrelated to relief under section
1172.6, including alleged failure to instruct on lesser included offenses and
alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. He does not raise any potentially
meritorious issues for reversal on appeal.
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Delgadillo and asks the court to conduct a Wende review of the record for
error. To assist the court in its review, and in compliance with Anders v.
California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified one issue that
was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: whether the
trial court erred in concluding that Jarvis is ineligible for relief under section
1172.6 as a matter of law because Jarvis was not convicted of attempted
murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine or any theory
under which malice is imputed based solely on participation in some other
crime.
We have independently reviewed the record consistent with the
requirements of Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any potentially
meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has
represented Jarvis on this appeal.
3
DISPOSITION
The order denying Jarvis’s petition for resentencing under section
1172.6 is affirmed.
McCONNELL, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
O'ROURKE, J.
KELETY, J.
4