Filed 7/7/26 P. v. Davis CA2/8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION EIGHT
THE PEOPLE, B347244
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. BA191190)
v.
ROBERT DAVIS,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Olivia Rosales, Judge. Affirmed.
Robert Davis, in pro. per.; and George M. Velez, under
appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_________________________
Robert Davis appeals from an order denying his request to
reduce a nearly 27-year-old felony conviction to a misdemeanor.
(See Pen. Code, § 17, subd. (b).) We affirm.
In 1999, Davis pleaded guilty to one count of making
terrorist threats. (Pen. Code, § 422.)
Years later, in 2026, Davis filed a motion seeking dismissal
of his 1999 conviction under Penal Code section 1203.4 as well as
reduction of that conviction to a misdemeanor under Penal Code
section 17, subdivision (b). The trial court granted dismissal but
denied reduction. Denying reduction, the court referred to
Davis’s criminal history. This included being “bench warranted”
on the 1999 case for over 10 years, a conviction for grand theft in
2007, having probation terminated in 2012 on the 1999 case, a
2016 conviction for dissuading a witness, and a 2017 probation
violation related to that case.
Davis appealed. His counsel filed a brief that identified no
arguable issues. Afterwards, Davis filed a supplemental brief
asking this court to take a “second look” at the reduction issue.
He asserted “defendant had dismissed all past cases, most being
misdemeanors and the bench [¶] warrant was based on a wrong
court date.” He also asserted this was a “racial case, a black
alleged victim, and the defendant with factual proof that the
crime never happened as stated by the [¶] alleged victim.”
In People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo),
our Supreme Court offered “guidance for counsel and courts to
follow in postconviction appeals where counsel finds no arguable
issues.” (Id. at p. 231.) Although doing so in the context of an
appeal from an order denying relief under Penal Code section
1172.6, the court indicated its guidance should apply to other
2
postconviction appeals absent an “unusual” context calling “for
additional or more specialized requirements.” (Ibid.)
Under Delgadillo, where “counsel finds no arguable issues
to be pursued on appeal: (1) counsel should file a brief informing
the court of that determination, including a concise recitation of
the facts bearing on the denial of the petition; and (2) the court
should send, with a copy of counsel’s brief, notice to the
defendant, informing the defendant of the right to file a
supplemental letter or brief and that if no letter or brief is filed
within 30 days, the court may dismiss the matter.” (Delgadillo,
supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 231–232.) “If the defendant
subsequently files a supplemental brief or letter, the Court of
Appeal is required to evaluate the specific arguments presented
in that brief and to issue a written opinion. The filing of a
supplemental brief or letter does not compel an independent
review of the entire record to identify unraised issues. [Citation.]
If the defendant does not file a supplemental brief or letter, the
Court of Appeal may dismiss the appeal as abandoned.
[Citation.] If the appeal is dismissed as abandoned, the Court of
Appeal does not need to write an opinion but should notify the
defendant when it dismisses the matter. [Citation.] 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
. . . .” (Id., at p. 232.)
“On appeal, we presume that a judgment or order of the
trial court is correct, ‘ “ [a]ll intendments and presumptions are
indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent,
and error must be affirmatively shown.” ’ ” (People v. Giordano
(2007) 42 Cal.4th 644, 666.) A litigant, even a self-represented
one, must support their assertions with citations to legal
3
authority and the record. (LNSU #1, LLC v. Alta Del Mar
Coastal Collection Community Assn. (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 1050,
1070; Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246–1247.)
Davis’s supplemental brief does not support its arguments
with citations to legal authority or the record.
Even so, it appears the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in denying reduction of the 1999 conviction to a
misdemeanor. Davis’s criminal history, including probationary
and post-probationary behavior, supports that discretionary
denial. (People v. Tran (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 877, 879, 892.)
Davis asserts his past cases were dismissed and were mostly
misdemeanors, but we see no support in the record for these
conclusions, and Davis, moreover, does not explain the legal
impact of these conclusions on the trial court’s discretionary
decision under Penal Code section 17, subdivision (b).
Davis’s argument that this was a “racial case” is not fleshed
out and was not raised below. To the extent Davis may be
directly attacking his 1999 conviction, he pleaded guilty to that
offense and the trial court granted Penal Code section 1203.4
relief as to that offense. This appeal concerns the validity of the
trial court’s reduction decision.
Having addressed the issues Davis raised in his
supplemental brief, we decline to conduct a further independent
review of the record. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.)
4
DISPOSITION
We affirm the order denying relief under Penal Code
section 17, subdivision (b).
SCHERB, J.
We concur:
WILEY, Acting P. J.
VIRAMONTES, J.
5
