People v. Powers CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D080571 · 2022-11-21 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from an order
Trial court: Superior Court of Riverside County · No. RIF10001948
Trial judge: John D. Molloy
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Judith D. McConnell, Buchanan

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:42Z · confidence low

The trial court denied Powers's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, finding he failed to establish a prima facie case based on the record of conviction. The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial, finding no arguable issues for reversal after a Wende/Anders review.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 “Based on the record, as agreed by counsel, the court found Powers had not stated a prima facie case for relief under section 1172.6.”	unclear	correct	agree with court agree with court

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to review the record for arguable errors when no issues are identified.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to file a brief identifying arguable issues or explaining why none exist, and the court to review the record.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the Wende/Anders framework for reviewing an appeal where counsel identifies no issues. It accurately notes that the appellant's supplemental brief raised issues from the original trial rather than the resentencing order, which is not the subject of this appeal.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:30Z · confidence low

The Riverside County Superior Court denied Nathan Powers's Penal Code section 1172.6 resentencing petition at the prima facie stage after the prosecutor represented, and defense counsel agreed, that Powers was convicted as the actual shooter and the jury received no aiding-and-abetting, felony-murder, or natural-and-probable-consequences instructions. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief, Powers filed a supplemental brief attacking only his original trial, and the Court of Appeal conducted a Wende/Anders review, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of section 1172.6 petition at the prima facie stage based on the record of conviction (jury instructions and prior appellate opinion) as agreed by counsel “Based on the record, as agreed by counsel, the court found Powers had not stated a prima facie case for relief under section 1172.6.”	unclear	correct	agree with court A defendant convicted as the sole, actual shooter under instructions containing no theory of imputed malice is ineligible for section 1172.6 relief as a matter of law, and the jury instructions are part of the record of conviction a court may consult at the prima facie stage under People v. Lewis. The trial court appointed counsel and held a hearing, so the procedural protections Lewis requires were observed. The opinion does not independently recite the instructions and the court relied on counsel's stipulated description, and it does not address section 1172.6, subdivision (c)'s requirement of a statement of reasons; but with defense counsel confirming the record, any such defects could not have been prejudicial. The prosecutor's reference to 'attempted murder' is an obvious misstatement that does not affect the analysis.
Powers's supplemental-brief claims of error by the trial judge, prosecutor, and defense counsel at the original 2013 trial “He does not raise any issues regarding the denial of his petition for resentencing, which is the only trial proceeding involved in this appeal.”	unclear	not reached	agree with court An appeal from a postjudgment order denying a section 1172.6 petition does not reopen the long-final judgment of conviction, which this court affirmed in 2015; claims of trial error are outside the scope of the appeal, and section 1172.6 is not a vehicle for relitigating trial error. The court correctly declined to treat those claims as arguable issues.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel finds no arguable issues, the Court of Appeal independently reviews the entire record for arguable error.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous must file a brief identifying 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 court must appoint counsel if requested and may consult the record of conviction, including jury instructions, to determine whether the petitioner is ineligible as a matter of law, but may not engage in factfinding.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The result is clearly correct because an actual-shooter conviction with no imputed-malice instructions makes the petitioner ineligible as a matter of law, and the court's decision to conduct full Wende review gave the defendant more than the law may have required. The opinion, however, cites no section 1172.6 authority such as Lewis, does not address whether Wende applies to postconviction appeals (then an open question pending Delgadillo), and does not engage the identified issues about the trial court's reliance on counsel's representations or its failure to state reasons under section 1172.6, subdivision (c).

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 11/21/22 P. v. Powers 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, D080571

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. RIF10001948)

NATHAN LEE POWERS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Riverside County, John D. Molloy, Judge. Affirmed. Nathan Powers, in pro. per.; and Kimberly J. Grove, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2013, a jury convicted Nathan Powers of second degree murder (Pen.

Code,1 § 187) and found true an allegation that he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing death or great bodily injury 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). Powers was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 15 years to life for murder plus 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement. Powers appealed and this court affirmed the judgment in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Powers (Aug. 28, 2015, D068043).) In April 2022, Powers filed a petition for resentencing under section 1170.95 (now renumbered 1172.6). The court appointed counsel and held a hearing. The prosecutor requested dismissal stating, “It’s our motion for the Court to deny the petition at this point. Appellate opinion and jury instructions are both in imaging. The defendant was found guilty of attempted murder [sic] for shooting the victim during a rap video. He says he shot the victim in self-defense. There’s no instruction on aiding and abetting, felony murder, or natural and probable consequences given.” Defense counsel advised the court that the prosecutor’s representations were accurate. Based on the record, as agreed by counsel, the court found Powers had not stated a prima facie case for relief under section 1172.6. Powers appealed the order denying his petition. 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 Powers the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal. He has responded with a supplemental letter brief. We will discuss his brief later in this opinion.2 DISCUSSION 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 2 The facts of the offense were discussed in our prior opinion. We will not discuss them again in our current opinion. 2 in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified the following issues which were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: 1. Whether Powers’s petition established a prima facie case for relief under section 1172.6. 2. Whether the trial court’s summary denial of the petition violated state and federal due process. 3. Whether the trial court prejudicially erred in failing to state reasons for its decision denying Powers’s petition. 4. Whether the trial court prejudicially erred in relying on the representations of counsel regarding the state of the record of conviction. Powers submitted a supplemental brief in which he complained about the original trial. He alleges error at trial by the trial judge, the prosecutor, and defense counsel. He does not raise any issues regarding the denial of his petition for resentencing, which is the only trial proceeding involved in this appeal. Powers has not raised any arguable issues for reversal of the order denying his petition for resentencing. 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 Powers on this appeal.

3 DISPOSITION The order denying Powers’s petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

BUCHANAN, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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