People v. Harrison CA4/2

Opinion

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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.