Filed 8/26/26 P. v. Carter CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
THE PEOPLE, C102845
Plaintiff and Respondent,
(Super. Ct. No. 96F01462)
v.
DESTINY CARTER,
Defendant and Appellant.
Defendant Destiny Carter appeals from a postconviction order denying his
resentencing petition under Penal Code1 section 1172.6.2 Appellate counsel filed a brief
raising no arguable issues under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v.
Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo) and asking this court to conduct an
independent review of the record. Defendant filed a supplemental brief. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On February 15, 1996, defendant got in a truck that did not belong to him and
began to drive away. As he drove away, the truck’s owner (the victim) held on to the
1 Undesignated section references are to the Penal Code.
2 Defendant referenced section 1170.95 in his resentencing petition, however
effective June 30, 2022, former section 1170.95 was recodified without substantive
change to section 1172.6. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) We refer to the current
section 1172.6 throughout this opinion.
1
back of the truck. He yelled out to defendant to stop the truck. Defendant did not stop.
Instead, defendant “deliberately swerve[d] or fishtail[ed] the truck in an effort to shake
. . . off” the victim. As a result, the victim was “flung off” the truck and “into the side of
a parked” car. The victim died from the resulting injuries.
The prosecution charged defendant with first degree murder committed during a
robbery, robbery, and carjacking.
On September 13, 1996, defendant pled guilty to first degree murder and admitted
to violating his probation in two other cases, which are not subject to this appeal. The
trial court sentenced defendant to a stipulated term of 25 years to life, plus three years
eight months to be served consecutively to the indeterminate term. Defendant did not
appeal.
On August 8, 2022, defendant filed a section 1172.6 resentencing petition. The
trial court appointed counsel, the prosecution conceded defendant made a prima facie
case for relief, and the trial court issued an order to show cause.
In its opposition to defendant’s petition, the prosecution relied on the preliminary
examination transcript as well as defendant’s video-taped confession. In his confession,
defendant admitted to knowing a man was hanging on to the back of the truck. He also
admitted to intentionally swerving in an effort to throw that man off and seeing the man
lying on the ground. Over defendant’s objection, the trial court considered that evidence
and found defendant could still be convicted of murder. The court explained defendant
was the actual killer and knew the victim was hanging on to the back of the truck. The
court denied the petition accordingly.
Defendant appeals.
DISCUSSION
Appellate counsel asks this court to conduct an independent review of the record
to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Delgadillo, supra,
14 Cal.5th at pp. 231-232; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was
2
advised by counsel and this court of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days
from the date the opening brief was filed. Defendant filed two requests for an extension
of time, which we granted, totaling 120 days. He filed a supplemental brief on July 15,
2026.
In Wende, our Supreme Court held that “Courts of Appeal must conduct a review
of the entire record whenever appointed counsel submits a brief on direct appeal [that]
raises no specific issues or describes the appeal as frivolous.” (Delgadillo, supra,
14 Cal.5th at p. 221.) The Wende procedure applies “to the first appeal as of right and is
compelled by the constitutional right to counsel under the Fourteenth Amendment of the
United States Constitution.” (Delgadillo, at p. 221.)
In Delgadillo, our Supreme Court considered whether the Wende process applies
to a trial court’s order denying a petition for postconviction relief under section 1172.6
and concluded it is not required. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 221-222.) The
Supreme Court laid out applicable procedures for such cases, explaining that when a
defendant files a supplemental brief, “the Court of Appeal is required to evaluate the
specific arguments presented in that brief and to issue a written opinion.” (Id. at pp. 231-
232.) But the filing of a supplemental brief does not compel the court to independently
review the entire record to identify unraised issues, though it may exercise its discretion
to do so. (Id. at p. 232.)
We decline to conduct an independent review of the record. In his supplemental
brief, defendant says he would not have taken the truck if he had seen “some one [sic]—
anyone coming out of the residence.” He also says he knows what he did was wrong, but
he should have gone to trial. It is apparent defendant regrets entering into a plea
agreement but that is not a legal argument related to the trial court’s denial of his
section 1172.6 petition. Indeed, what defendant does not challenge is the trial court’s
finding that he was the actual killer, which is the reason the trial court denied his
3
section 1172.6 petition. Defendant’s supplemental brief does not establish the trial court
erred by denying his section 1172.6 petition.
DISPOSITION
The order denying defendant’s section 1172.6 petition is affirmed.
/s/
ROBIE, Acting P. J.
We concur:
/s/
BOULWARE EURIE, J.
/s/
FEINBERG, J.
4