People v. Martinez CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from an order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of Riverside County · No. INF045974
- Trial judge
- Samuel Diaz, Jr.
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), O'Rourke, Truc T. Do
Analysis
The trial court denied Martinez's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, concluding she was the actual killer of the victim. The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial, finding no arguable issues for reversal 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“The court denied the petition for failure to state a prima facie case for relief under the statute.” | unclear | not reached | unsure The appellate court did not explicitly state a standard of review (e.g., abuse of discretion or de novo) for the trial court's denial. Instead, the court conducted an independent review of the entire record pursuant to People v. Wende and Anders v. California, concluding that no arguable issues for reversal existed. The court affirmed the order without providing a detailed legal analysis of the trial court's specific findings regarding the 'actual killer' prong, relying on the absence of arguable error in the record. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to review the record for arguable issues when no issues are identified, and requires the court to conduct an independent review of the record.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to file a brief identifying potential issues and requesting the court to review the record for error.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound in its adherence to Wende/Anders requirements, as it confirms counsel's review and the court's independent examination of the record. However, it is substantively thin because it fails to articulate the standard of review or provide any legal reasoning supporting the trial court's factual finding that Martinez was the 'actual killer,' which is the critical legal determination in a section 1172.6 case.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe Riverside County Superior Court denied Noava Martinez's Penal Code section 1172.6 (former 1170.95) resentencing petition at the prima facie stage after finding she was the actual killer who drove the car that struck and killed the victim during a police pursuit. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief, Martinez 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 petition for failure to state a prima facie case because petitioner was the actual killer“The court concluded Martinez was the actual killer who drove the car causing the victim’s death. The court denied the petition for failure to state a prima facie case for relief under the statute.” | unclear | correct | agree with court Section 1172.6 relief is available only to persons convicted under felony murder, natural and probable consequences, or another theory imputing malice based solely on participation in a crime. On the facts recited, Martinez personally drove the car that broadside-struck the victim's vehicle; she was the direct perpetrator and no accomplice-liability or imputed-malice theory is suggested, so the denial appears substantively correct. However, the opinion does not identify what the trial court consulted as the record of conviction (e.g., jury instructions or verdicts) and instead recites facts from the probation officer's report, which is not a reliable basis for a prima facie determination under People v. Lewis; the appellate court never articulates the Lewis standard or a standard of review, so the correctness of the result cannot be fully verified from the opinion. |
Appellate court's application of Wende/Anders independent review to an appeal from a postconviction section 1172.6 order“We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.” | de novo | correct | agree with court At the time of this opinion, published Court of Appeal decisions were split on whether Wende review was constitutionally required in postconviction appeals, and the Supreme Court had not yet decided People v. Delgadillo (Dec. 2022). The court chose to conduct full independent review, which is the more protective course for the defendant and cannot have prejudiced her; it also offered her the chance to file a supplemental brief. This procedure was within the court's discretion and consistent with later Supreme Court guidance. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel finds no arguable issues, the reviewing court must independently review the entire record for arguable error.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal frivolous must so advise the court and identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
- missed: People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952 — At the prima facie stage of a section 1172.6 petition, the trial court may consult the record of conviction but must take the petition's allegations as true and may not engage in factfinding involving the weighing of evidence or credibility; denial without an evidentiary hearing is proper only if the record of conviction establishes ineligibility as a matter of law.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The affirmance is defensible because a direct perpetrator who personally caused the death is ineligible for section 1172.6 relief, and Wende review in this context did not harm the appellant. But the opinion never states the governing Lewis prima facie standard, does not identify what in the record of conviction established ineligibility as a matter of law, and relies on a probation report summary of facts rather than the record of conviction, leaving the analysis thin.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
record incompleteOpinion
Filed 11/10/22 P. v. Martinez 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, D080719
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. INF045974)
NOAVA MICHELLE MARTINEZ,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Samuel Diaz, Jr., Judge. Affirmed. Mark D. Johnson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2009, a jury convicted Noava Michelle Martinez of murder (Pen.
Code,1 § 187, subd. (a)); evading police with reckless driving (Veh. Code, § 2800.2); and six counts of assault on a peace officer with a firearm (§ 245, 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. subd. (d)(2)). Martinez admitted three prison priors (§ 667.5, subd. (b)) and one strike prior (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)). Martinez was sentenced to a determinate term of 40 years and four months, to be followed by an indeterminate term of 30 years to life. In February 2022, Martinez filed a petition for resentencing under section 1170.95 (now renumbered section 1172.6). The trial court appointed counsel, reviewed the record, and held a brief hearing. The court concluded Martinez was the actual killer who drove the car causing the victim’s death. The court denied the petition for failure to state a prima facie case for relief under the statute. Martinez 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 mandated by Wende. We offered Martinez the opportunity to file her own brief on appeal, but she has not responded. STATEMENT OF FACTS Appellate counsel has provided a statement of facts from the probation officer’s report. We think the summary is helpful to provide background for the trial court’s rather brief explanation of its reasons for concluding Martinez was the actual killer. We will adopt the statement of facts as it is set forth in the opening brief. “On November 21, 2003, at approximately 2:15 p.m., the Sheriff’s Department Career Criminal Apprehension Team (CCAT) began surveillance on Michael Sanchez, who was a suspect in a carjacking. Sanchez had been observed in the passenger seat of a vehicle as it drove past a CCAT member who was patrolling in the city of Desert Hot Springs. The vehicle was 2 followed to 17900 Manzana Road and members of the CCAT established a perimeter on the house. Sanchez was seen exiting the vehicle and entering the house. “As CCAT members watched, a Ford Escort arrived at the house. Minutes later, Sanchez was observed exiting the house, getting into the Escort and lying down in the back seat. A female, later identified as Noava Martinez, the defendant, also exited the house and got into the Escort in the driver’s side. She drove the car from in front of the house and headed southbound on 18th Avenue toward Palm Drive. CCAT members followed the vehicle at a discrete distance while they called for additional officers. “After she left the house on Manzana, Martinez, driving in what appeared to be an aimless manner, proceeded south on Palm Drive to Interstate 10. She drove west on Interstate 10 until reaching Highway 62 and headed north. She left the highway, using a combination of dirt roads and paved streets, and eventually ended up on Indian Avenue headed north. At 2:37 p.m., with additional law enforcement units in place, a Sheriff’s Deputy attempted a traffic stop. Martinez sped away and a pursuit ensued. “As Martinez drove east on Dillon Road toward Two Bunch Palms Road, deputies involved in the chase reported Sanchez was firing a handgun at them from the back seat of the vehicle. Martinez attempted to turn into a parking lot of Desert Springs Middle School, located on Two Bunch Palms Road east of Palm Drive, but was unable to make the turn. Two deputies stopped their patrol cars directly behind Martinez and attempted to make contact. Sanchez leaned out of the passenger window of the vehicle with a handgun pointed in the direction of the deputies. Fearing for their safety, the deputies’ fired several rounds into the vehicle. Sanchez fired one round, 3 striking one of the deputies’ vehicles. Martinez sped away, headed westbound on Two Bunch Palms Road with the deputies in pursuit. “Martinez, traveling at a high rate of speed, turned south on Palm Drive, east on Camino Idillio, then south on Avenida Manzana. As she approached the intersection of Manzana and Dillon, a Honda Civic, driven by Scott [N.], with the victim, Delonn [A.], age 49, as his passenger, entered the intersection traveling west and was struck broadside by Martinez. The force of the impact carried both vehicles into a vacant lot on the southwest corner of Dillon Road and Avenida Manzana. “Sanchez exited the vehicle and fled on foot. He was eventually captured and subsequently suffered a cardiac arrest. He was declared dead, despite receiving treatment from California Department of Forestry personnel summoned to the scene. Martinez was unconscious and bleeding from injuries sustained in the accident. She was transported to Desert Regional Medical Center. An examination of the Escort revealed a handgun lying on the driver’s side floorboard. “[Scott] and [Delonn] were removed from the Honda Civic and transported to Desert Regional Hospital. [Scott]’s injuries were not serious but [Delonn] was declared dead upon arrival at the emergency room. According to the Coroner’s report, she suffered massive blunt force trauma. Her injuries included fractured ribs and lacerations to her lung, liver, spleen and aorta. “Sheriff’s Investigator Gary LeClair interviewed Martinez at the hospital. At first, she misidentified herself as Tanya Benavidez. She reported having no arrest record and denied she was on parole or probation. In addition, Martinez informed LeClair she could not recall events leading up to the accident and refused to admit having a relationship with Sanchez.
4 “Martinez changed her story and reported she had smoked marijuana and methamphetamine while at the house on Avenida Manzana and left in her cousin’s vehicle. She would not admit Sanchez was in the vehicle with her and asked about him repeatedly. When pressured, Martinez acknowledged Sanchez was in the vehicle with her but claimed she was frightened because people in SUVs were chasing her. She denied knowing the police were trying to get her to stop. “LeClair advised Martinez to be truthful and she finally admitted her identity. She was able to provide LeClair with her social security number, her California identification card number and her Department of Corrections identification numbers without delay. Martinez stated she and Sanchez were fleeing in an attempt to avoid arrest. “Martinez reported she was wanted for violating her parole. She believed the people following them were plain clothes police officers. She knew Sanchez carried a gun and saw him firing it out the window. Martinez claimed she heard the sirens but did not see any flashing lights or police vehicles. When asked if she felt her actions had created a dangerous situation, Martinez stated she believed everyone involved was endangered.”
DISCUSSION2 As we have noted appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to 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 the following possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Whether the trial court erred in refusing to resentence Martinez under section 1172.6.
2 Appellant’s request for judicial notice, is granted. 5 We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Martinez on this appeal. DISPOSITION The order denying Martinez’s petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
O’ROURKE, J.
DO, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12