Filed 8/28/26 P. v. Brewer 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, E087130
v. (Super.Ct.No. FSB24003629)
GEORGE BREWER, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Harold T. Wilson,
Jr., Judge. Dismissed.
George Brewer in pro. per. and Bruce L. Kotler, under appointment by the Court
of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
INTRODUCTION
Defendant and appellant George Brewer appeals the trial court’s denial of two
petitions he filed, in propria persona, entitled “Petition to Void/Dismiss or Vacate
Judgment Pursuant to Cal. Const. Article III, Penal Code Section 17(b)(1).” Appellate
counsel filed an opening brief and asks this court to review the record and determine
whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S.
738 (Anders) and People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).1 We dismiss.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On October 8, 2024, defendant entered into a plea agreement and pled guilty to
one count of arson of the property of another (Pen. Code2 § 451, subd. (d), count 1) and
admitted one prior strike conviction (§§ 1170.12, subd. (a)-(d) & 667, subd. (b)-(i)) and
one prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)). The parties stipulated that there
was a factual basis for the plea. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, the court
sentenced defendant to the low term of 16 months on count 1, doubled pursuant to the
strike, plus five years on the prior serious felony conviction, for a total of seven years
eight months in state prison; it also dismissed two other cases with a Harvey3 waiver.
1 We recognize that Wende does not apply to an appeal from the denial of
postconviction relief. (People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 226
(Delgadillo).) Thus, we have no obligation to conduct an independent review of the
record.
2 All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code unless otherwise
indicated.
3 People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.
2
On May 8, 2025, defendant filed an in propria persona “Petition to Void/Dismiss
or Vacate Judgment Pursuant to Cal. Const. Article III, Penal Code Section 17(b)(1).”
(Caps omitted.) The petition alleged that the felony complaint was “absolutely void on
it’s [sic] face” because “the invalid penal statute[] of PC 451(D)F4 is not recognized by
any California Penal Statute[].” (Caps Omitted.) Defendant then appeared to argue that
the case had to be dismissed because the court lacked jurisdiction.
On July 25, 2025, the court denied the petition, indicating that it “lacks specificity
as to the code section which would allow relief.”
On August 18, 2025, defendant filed a second petition with the same title as the
first petition. The court denied this petition on September 8, 2025, indicating the “case is
post plea.”
On September 22, 2025, defendant filed a third petition, which was essentially the
same as the second petition filed on August 18, 2025. The court denied the third petition,
indicating that the “matter was addressed on 9/08/2025.”
Defendant timely filed a notice of appeal of the denials of the first petition and
second petitions.
4 In his petitions, defendant challenges his conviction and refers to it as “P.C.
451(D)F” or something similar. He apparently included the “F” to denote the offense is a
felony. For the remainder of this opinion, we will omit the “F” when referring to his
conviction.
3
DISCUSSION
After the notice of appeal was filed, this court appointed counsel to represent
defendant. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436
and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case, and identifying the
following potential arguable issue: whether the trial court erred by denying the petitions.
On the court’s own motion, the appeal filed from the trial court’s denial of
defendant’s unauthorized postjudgment petitions is dismissed because the court’s denials
do not affect his substantial rights. (§ 1237, subd. (b).) Defendant’s petitions were based
on section 17, subdivision (b), which did not authorize the trial court to void or dismiss
his judgment. (See § 17, subd. (b).) Therefore, denial of defendant’s petitions could not
have affected his substantial rights. (See People v. King (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 629, 639
[“A trial court order denying relief that the court has no jurisdiction to grant does not
affect a defendant’s substantial rights and is therefore not appealable under section 1237,
subdivision (b).”]; see also, People v. Chlad (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1719, 1725-1726.) We
are aware of no authority which authorizes the defendant to bring the petitions he filed.
Accordingly, the orders denying defendant’s petitions are not appealable orders, and the
appeal must be dismissed. (See People v. Garcia (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 139, 144
[“Where a defendant whose conviction is final files a statutorily unauthorized
‘“freestanding”’ petition, both the court below and this court lack jurisdiction to consider
the arguments raised therein; thus, the appeal must be dismissed.”].)
4
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
FIELDS
J.
We concur:
CODRINGTON
Acting P. J.
MENETREZ
J.
5