People v. Irvin CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D083053 · 2024-10-15 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD201413
Trial judge: Evan P. Kirvin
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Laurence D. Rubin, Joan K. Irion

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:03Z · confidence low

The trial court denied Irvin's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, finding beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the actual shooter and acted with specific intent to kill. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 “Based on the evidence admitted at this evidentiary hearing, the court finds the People have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that petitioner is ineligible for resentencing due to the fact that the defendant was the actual shooter and that he acted with the specific intent to kill.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The appellate court did not explicitly state the standard of review (e.g., substantial evidence) but affirmed the judgment after an independent Wende review, finding no arguable issues for reversal. The court relied on the trial court's finding that the People met their burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt based on the trial transcript.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to conduct an independent review of the record for error when no arguable issues are identified.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires counsel to file a brief identifying any arguable issues and the court to independently review the record when counsel finds no merit.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound in its application of the Wende/Anders framework, correctly noting that counsel filed a brief and the court conducted an independent review. However, it is substantively thin, as it fails to articulate the specific standard of review applied to the trial court's factual findings or provide any analysis of why the trial court's determination was correct, relying solely on the absence of arguable issues.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:29Z · confidence low

The trial court, after issuing an order to show cause and holding a Penal Code section 1172.6 evidentiary hearing based on the original trial transcript, denied Willie James Irvin's resentencing petition, finding beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the actual shooter who acted with specific intent to kill. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief, Irvin filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of section 1172.6 resentencing petition after evidentiary hearing on the ground that petitioner was the actual shooter who acted with specific intent to kill “the court finds the People have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that petitioner is ineligible for resentencing due to the fact that the defendant was the actual shooter and that he acted with the specific intent to kill.”	substantial evidence	correct	agree with court A petitioner who was the actual perpetrator and acted with intent to kill is ineligible for relief under section 1172.6 as a matter of law, and the trial court made that finding beyond a reasonable doubt after considering the trial record. The appellate court identified sufficiency of the evidence as the only potential issue and, after independent review, found no arguable error. The opinion does not recite the facts, so I cannot verify the sufficiency finding from the opinion itself, but nothing in the opinion suggests the finding was unsupported.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Appointed appellate counsel who finds no arguable issues may file a brief requesting independent review of the record, and the appellate court must conduct that review in a first appeal of right.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Counsel filing a no-merit brief should identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal to assist the court's review.
missed: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Wende/Anders independent review is not constitutionally required in an appeal from the denial of a section 1172.6 petition; the court must notify the defendant that failure to file a supplemental brief may result in dismissal as abandoned, and if none is filed the court may dismiss or, in its discretion, conduct independent review.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The result is defensible because Delgadillo permits a Court of Appeal to conduct independent review in its discretion in a section 1172.6 appeal, and the court did so and found no error. But the opinion treats Wende review as 'required' in a postconviction appeal without citing or acknowledging Delgadillo, the controlling Supreme Court authority on the procedure applicable to such appeals, and it does not state the substantial evidence standard or recite any facts supporting the actual-shooter finding.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 10/15/24 P. v. Irvin 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, D083053

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD201413)

WILLIE JAMES IRVIN,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Evan P. Kirvin, Judge. Affirmed. Jennifer A. Gambale, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2007, a jury convicted Willie James Irvin of attempted murder (Pen.

Code,1 §§ 187, subd. (a), 664) along with five other felonies. The jury found true firearms enhancements under sections 12022.53, subdivision (c) and 12022, subdivision (a)(1).

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code. Irvin was sentenced to a term of 25 years in prison. Irvin appealed and this court affirmed the judgment in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Irvin (May 12, 2009, D052052).) In 2022, Irvin filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. The court appointed counsel and received briefing. The court determined Irvin had stated a prima facie case for relief under the statute and issued an order to show cause. The court thereafter held an evidentiary hearing. The evidence presented consisted of the transcript of the original trial. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court stated it considered the evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing. The court stated, ”Based on the evidence admitted at this evidentiary hearing, the court finds the People have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that petitioner is ineligible for resentencing due to the fact that the defendant was the actual shooter and that he acted with the specific intent to kill.” Irvin has filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to review the record for error as required by Wende. We offered Irvin the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. Since the evidentiary hearing was based only on the evidence admitted at trial, we find it unnecessary to repeat the evidence here. We have previously discussed the facts in our prior opinion.

2 DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks us 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 (Anders), counsel has identified a possible issue which was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Whether the trial court’s decision denying Irvin’s petition was supported by sufficient 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 Irvin on this appeal. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

IRION, J.

RUBIN, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12