People v. Dunsmore CA4/1 ( 2024 )


Menu:
  • Filed 10/18/24 P. v. Dunsmore 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    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                                          D083375
    Plaintiff and Respondent,
    v.                                                         (Super. Ct. No. SCS215653)
    DARRYL LEE DUNSMORE,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
    Garry G. Haehnle, Judge. Affirmed.
    Darryl Lee Dunsmore, in pro. per.; and Jared G. Coleman, under
    appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
    No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
    In 2010, Darryl Lee Dunsmore was convicted of attempted voluntary
    manslaughter while personally inflicting great bodily injury (Pen. Code,1
    §§ 192, subd. (a), 664, & 12022.7, subd. (a)), assault with a deadly weapon
    while inflicting great bodily injury (§§ 245, subd. (a)(1), 12022.7, subd. (a)),
    1        All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
    and a second count of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)). The
    court found true a serious felony prior conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)), a prison
    prior (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), and a strike prior (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)).
    Dunsmore was ultimately sentenced to a determinate term of 21 years
    in prison.
    Dunsmore appealed, and this court affirmed the conviction in an
    unpublished opinion. (People v. Dunsmore (Dec. 21, 2011, D057645).)
    Dunsmore has filed at least six appeals in this case complaining about
    multiple issues, in addition to this appeal, addressing the denial of his
    petition for resentencing under section 1172.6.
    In 2021, Dunsmore filed a petition for resentencing under
    section 1170.95 (now renumbered section 1172.6). The trial court found
    Dunsmore was not eligible for resentencing under the statute. Dunsmore
    appealed, and this court affirmed in an unpublished opinion. (People v.
    Dunsmore (June 30, 2022, D079851).)
    Dunsmore filed his second petition for resentencing under
    section 1172.6 The trial court again found him ineligible for relief under
    section 1172.6.
    Dunsmore again filed a notice of appeal.
    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 to independently review the record for
    error. We informed Dunsmore he could file his brief on appeal. He has
    responded with a supplemental brief.
    Dunsmore complains about numerous issues, including assistance of
    counsel, his conviction, and various sentencing topics including custody
    2
    credits. He does not address the issue in this appeal of whether a person
    convicted of attempted voluntary manslaughter can seek relief under
    section 1172.6. His supplemental brief does not raise any potentially
    meritorious issues in this appeal from denial of his petition under
    section 1172.6.
    DISCUSSION
    As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Delgadillo brief and
    asks the court to independently review the record for error. To assist the
    court and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 
    386 U.S. 738
    ,
    counsel has identified three possible issues that were considered in
    evaluating the potential merits of this appeal:
    1.    Whether the court should order resentencing in the interests of
    justice.
    2.    Whether a conviction for attempted manslaughter is eligible for
    relief under section 1172.6.
    3.    Whether custody credits were properly applied.
    We have exercised our discretion to independently review the record for
    error. Our review of the record has not identified any potentially meritorious
    issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Dunsmore
    in this appeal.
    3
    DISPOSITION
    The order denying Dunsmore’s second petition for resentencing under
    section 1172.6 is affirmed.
    HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
    WE CONCUR:
    DO, J.
    CASTILLO, J.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: D083375

Filed Date: 10/18/2024

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/18/2024