People v. Nelson - Criminal Appeal

CA Court of Appeal Opinions

Filed March 2nd, 2026

Detected March 2nd, 2026

Summary

The California Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of a petition for resentencing filed by Charles L. Nelson. The court found that Nelson was the actual perpetrator of the offenses and therefore ineligible for relief under Penal Code section 1172.6. The appeal was reviewed under the Wende/Anders standard.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, affirmed the trial court's denial of Charles L. Nelson's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6. The appellate court reviewed the case under the Wende/Anders standard after Nelson's appointed counsel could not identify arguable issues for appeal. The court found that substantial evidence supported the trial court's determination that Nelson was the actual perpetrator of the attempted murder and great bodily injury offenses, making him ineligible for resentencing relief.

This decision affirms the trial court's ruling and has no immediate compliance implications for regulated entities. It serves as a judicial affirmation of the application of resentencing laws in cases where the petitioner is found to be the direct perpetrator. Legal professionals representing defendants in similar post-conviction relief matters should note the appellate court's adherence to the Wende/Anders review standard and the focus on evidence of direct perpetration in denying relief.

Source document (simplified)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 2, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

People v. Nelson CA4/1

California Court of Appeal

Citations: None known
Docket Number: D085826
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Opinion
Authorities (2)
Cited By (0)
Summaries (0)
Similar Cases (0)
PDF

Combined Opinion

Filed 3/2/26 P. v. Nelson CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D085826

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN409177)

CHARLES L. NELSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Michael D. Washington, Judge. Affirmed.
Benjamin Kington, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In September 2021, Charles L. Nelson pleaded guilty to attempted
murder with a knife and admitted he inflicted great bodily injury (Pen.

Code,1 §§ 664/187, subd. (a), 12022, subd. (b)(1), & 12022.7, subd. (e)).

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
In July 2024, Nelson filed a petition for resentencing under
section 1172.6. The trial court found Nelson had made a prima facie showing
eligibility for relief under the statute and issued an order to show cause. The
court conducted an evidentiary hearing. The court found the evidence
showed Nelson was the actual perpetrator of the offenses and was not eligible
for relief under section 1172.6. The court denied the petition.
Nelson filed a timely notice of appeal.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436 indicating counsel has not been able to identify any arguable
issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to independently review
the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Nelson the
opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks
the court to independently review the record for error. To assist the court in
its review, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738,
counsel has identified a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the
potential merits of this appeal: Whether the trial court’s denial of the
petition was supported by substantial evidence.
We have reviewed the record for error as required by Wende and
Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.
Competent counsel has represented Nelson on this appeal.

2
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.*

WE CONCUR:

DATO, Acting P. J.

DO, J.

Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. 3