Filed 8/6/26 P. v. Colbert 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,
E086732
Plaintiff and Respondent,
(Super.Ct.No. RIF105601)
v.
OPINION
DALE ANTHONY COLBERT,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Joshlyn R. Pulliam,
Judge. Affirmed.
William D. Farber, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
In August 2025 the trial court resentenced Dale Anthony Colbert under Penal
Code section 1172.75.1 Colbert appealed. His attorney filed a brief under the authority
of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386
U.S. 7382 informing this court they were unable to identify any errors and asking us to
perform an independent review of the record. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
In July 2004 the trial court sentenced Colbert for two violations of section 288,
subdivision (a). The trial court sentenced him to an aggregate term of 106 years to life,
composed of two 25 years to life terms (doubled under section 667, subdivision (e)(1)),
one five-year term under section 667, subdivision (a), and one one-year term under
section 667.5, subdivision (b), all to be served consecutively.
In June 2022 the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR)
identified Colbert as a person serving a sentence which contained a now invalid
enhancement, as required under section 1172.75. In November 2023 the court followed
section 1172.75 by recalling Colbert’s sentence and striking the one-year prior prison
1 Unlabeled statutory citations refer to the Penal Code.
2 Counsel also alleges that procedures under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14
Cal.5th 216 “may . . . apply given this is not appellant’s first appeal as of right.”
Delgadillo addressed the application of Wende review in the context of a postconviction
relief order under section 1172.6, but specifically did “not decid[e] Wende’s application
to other postconviction contexts, which may present different considerations.” (Id. at
p. 231, fn. 5.) We do not address whether Wende or Delgadillo is the proper procedure to
apply here, and instead exercise our discretion under Delgadillo to apply the Wende
procedures regardless. (Id. at p. 370 [“While it is wholly within the court’s discretion,
the Court of Appeal is not barred from conducting its own independent review of the
record.”].)
2
enhancement imposed under section 667.5, subdivision (b). However, the court did not
conduct a full resentencing, and continued the resentencing hearing into 2024. The
resentencing was not completed until 2025 due to multiple subsequent continuances—all
of which Colbert either stipulated to or requested.
In June 2025 Colbert filed a resentencing memorandum arguing the court should
exercise its discretion under People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 to
strike one of his strikes. In August 2025 the prosecution responded, arguing “that it
would be unconstitutional for the court to consider any Romero request.”
The court finally held the full resentencing hearing on August 12, 2025. At the
hearing the court concluded it did have the authority to strike a prior strike when
resentencing Colbert under section 1172.75, but declined to do so. Instead, the court
struck the remaining section 667, subdivision (a) five-year enhancement, but did not
otherwise disturb the sentence. Colbert’s new aggregate term became 100 years to life.
Colbert timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent Colbert on appeal, and counsel filed a brief
setting forth a statement of the case and a summary of the facts and asking us to conduct
an independent review of the record. We offered Colbert an opportunity to file a personal
supplemental brief, and he has not done so.
We have independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no
arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to Colbert.
3
DISPOSITION
We affirm the judgment.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAPHAEL
J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ
P. J.
MENETREZ
J.
4