People v. Mansfield CA4/2 ( 2024 )

Filed 10/15/24 P. v. Mansfield 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, E083158
v. (Super. Ct. No. FSB17954)
ROBERT MANSFIELD, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Brian McCarville, Judge.
Dismissed.
Heather E. Shallenberger, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
I.
INTRODUCTION
Defendant and appellant Robert Mansfield appeals the trial court’s postjudgment
1
order denying his petition for resentencing of his murder conviction (Pen. Code, § 187,
1
Unless otherwise indicated, all future statutory references are to the Penal Code.
1
subd. (a)) under section 1172.6 (formerly § 1170.95). Appointed counsel has filed a brief
under the authority of People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo),
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 not
done so. Because defendant’s counsel filed a brief raising no issues and defendant was
notified that failure to timely file a supplemental brief may result in the dismissal of the
appeal as abandoned and was given an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief
but failed to do so, we dismiss the appeal as abandoned. (Id. at pp. 231-232.)
II.
2
BACKGROUND
Between September 21, 1997, and October 3, 1997, defendant, who was 19 years
old at the time, and his coparticipants participated in a series of armed robberies of six
convenience stores. During one of the robberies, defendant and one of his coparticipants
shot a store clerk, who later died from his injuries. Defendant bragged to his friend about
his involvement in the crime spree. (Mansfield I, supra, E025089.)
On April 13, 1999, a jury convicted defendant of seven counts of robbery (§ 211;
counts 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, & 11), one count of attempted second degree robbery (§§ 664/211;
count 8), three counts of assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2); counts 2, 7, & 12),
2
A summary of the background is taken from this court’s nonpublished opinion
in defendant’s direct appeal, case No. E025089. (People v. Mansfield (Apr. 19, 2000,
E025089) [nonpub. opn.] (Mansfield I).) We granted defendant’s request to take judicial
notice of the record on appeal from his prior direct appeal in case No. E025089.
2
and one count of murder (§ 187, subd. (a); count 10). As to all counts, the jury found true
the allegations that a principal was armed with a firearm (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1)) and that
defendant personally used a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)). Defendant was sentenced to a
total determinate term of 68 years and an indeterminate term of 25 years to life on count
10 for the murder conviction. Defendant’s judgment was affirmed on direct appeal. (See
Mansfield I, supra, E025089.)
On January 7, 2019, defendant personally filed a petition for resentencing pursuant
to former section 1170.95. The People subsequently filed a motion to strike defendant’s
petition for resentencing on grounds that the amendments effectuated by Senate Bill No.
1437 were unconstitutional and violated the separation of powers. (See People v.
Mansfield (June 18, 2020, E073847) [nonpub. opn.] (Mansfield II).) Following a hearing,
the trial court struck defendant’s petition for resentencing. (Ibid.)
On June 18, 2020, we reversed the trial court’s order striking defendant’s petition
and remanded the matter for the court to consider the petition on its merits. (Mansfield II,
supra, E073847.)
Upon remand, on March 11, 2021, the People filed a motion requesting the trial
court summarily deny defendant’s petition for resentencing. The People asserted that
defendant was ineligible for resentencing relief because he directly aided and abetted the
murder, he was a major participant in the robbery, and he acted with reckless disregard
for human life. (See People v. Mansfield (Mar. 14, 2022, E077064) [nonpub. opn.]
(Mansfield III).)
3
On May 7, 2021, the trial court, who also heard the underlying trial, held a hearing
on defendant’s petition. After hearing testimony from defendant and argument from
counsel, the trial court denied defendant’s petition. The court found that defendant had
not established a prima facie case to warrant further review or an evidentiary hearing
because defendant was an active participant who acted with reckless indifference to
human life. (Mansfield III, supra, E077064.) We reversed the order denying relief and
remanded the matter for an evidentiary hearing. (Mansfield III, supra, E077064.)
On December 1, 2023, following an evidentiary hearing on remand, the trial court
denied defendant’s section 1172.6 petition after reviewing the trial transcripts. The court
explained defendant’s record of conviction supports a finding beyond a reasonable doubt
that defendant was either the actual shooter or was a major participant in the robbery and
acted with reckless disregard for human life. Defendant timely appealed.
III.
DISCUSSION
After defendant appealed, appointed appellate counsel filed a brief under the
authority of Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th 216, setting forth a statement of the case and a
summary of the procedural background. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436(Wende); Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders).) Counsel considered
potential issues on appeal but found no specific arguments as grounds for relief, and
requests that we exercise our discretion and independently examine the appellate record
for any arguable issues. Under Anders, which requires “a brief referring to anything in
4
the record that might arguably support the appeal” (Anders, supra, at p. 744), counsel
raises the issues of whether there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s
finding that defendant remains liable for first degree murder as the actual killer and
whether the trial court’s finding defendant was a major participant in the robbery who
acted with reckless disregard for human life undermined by the given felony murder
instruction which allowed for a conviction without finding he had the intent to kill.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief. We
noted that if he did not do so, we could dismiss the appeal. Nevertheless, defendant 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.)
In Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th 216, 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, at pp. 224-226.) Thus, we need not examine
the entire record ourselves to look for arguable grounds for reversal. (Id. at p. 228.)
Because defendant’s counsel filed a brief raising no issues, and defendant was given an
opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief but declined, we may dismiss the appeal
as abandoned. (Id. at p. 232.) “Independent review in Wende appeals consumes
substantial judicial resources,” and “[t]he state . . . has an interest in an ‘economical and
expeditious resolution’ of an appeal from a decision that is ‘presumptively accurate and
just.’” (Id. at p. 229.)
5
We, however, have discretion to conduct Wende review even when it is not
required. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.) This case does not call for us to
exercise our discretion to independently examine the record for arguable issues, and
decline to exercise our discretion to independently examine the record. Accordingly, we
dismiss the appeal as abandoned.
IV.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
CODRINGTON
J.
We concur:
MILLER
Acting P. J.
FIELDS
J.
6