People v. Mixon CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D080985 · 2023-01-04 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from an order
Trial court: Superior Court of San Bernardino County · No. FVI1600254
Trial judge: Debra Harris
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Joan K. Irion, William S. Dato

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:40Z · confidence low

The trial court denied Mixon's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, finding he failed to establish a prima facie case because the record showed he was the actual killer. The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial, finding no arguable issues on independent review.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 “The court determined Mixon had not presented a prima facie case for resentencing under section 1172.6. Accordingly, the court denied the petition.”	abuse of discretion	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 error when no arguable issues are identified.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires independent review of the record by the court when counsel files a no-merit brief.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the Wende/Anders framework for independent review. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' opinion because it relies on the 'actual killer' exception to deny the petition without explicitly citing the specific statutory language of Penal Code section 1172.6 or the controlling case law (e.g., People v. Strong) that defines the prima facie showing requirements for that specific exception.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

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

The San Bernardino Superior Court denied Laurence Mixon's Penal Code section 1172.6 resentencing petitions at the prima facie stage, finding the record of conviction showed he was the actual killer in his 2017 first degree murder conviction. On appeal, counsel filed a Wende brief, Mixon filed a 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 without issuing an order to show cause, on the ground that the record of conviction showed Mixon was the actual killer and therefore failed to state a prima facie case for relief. “The court found the record showed Mixon was the actual killer of the victim. The court determined Mixon had not presented a prima facie case for resentencing under section 1172.6. Accordingly, the court denied the petition.”	unclear	correct	agree with court Section 1172.6 relief is unavailable to an actual killer, and under People v. Lewis a trial court may consult the record of conviction at the prima facie stage and deny a petition whose allegations are refuted by that record as a matter of law. Mixon did not seriously dispute that he was the actual perpetrator, so his argument that the court was bound to accept his contrary allegations fails. The opinion does not articulate a standard of review (counsel framed the issue as abuse of discretion, though prima facie denials are reviewed de novo), and it cites neither Lewis nor the recently decided Delgadillo, but the conclusion is correct on the record described.

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 record for error.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal lacking in merit should identify possible issues to assist the court's independent review.
missed: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Wende/Anders independent review is not constitutionally required on appeal from denial of a section 1172.6 petition; when the defendant files a supplemental brief the court must evaluate the specific arguments raised and issue a written opinion, but may exercise discretion to review the record independently. Decided December 19, 2022, before this opinion, yet not cited.
missed: People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952 — At the prima facie stage of a section 1172.6 petition the court may consider the record of conviction and may deny the petition where the record refutes the petitioner's allegations as a matter of law, but may not engage in factfinding or weighing of evidence. The opinion applies this principle without citing it.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The result is correct because an actual killer is ineligible for section 1172.6 relief and Mixon did not contest that finding, and the court did address his supplemental brief as required. However, the opinion conducts Wende review without acknowledging People v. Delgadillo, decided two weeks earlier, which holds that procedure inapplicable to 1172.6 appeals, and it cites no authority (such as Lewis) for the rule that the record of conviction may refute petition allegations at the prima facie stage.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 1/4/23 P. v. Mixon 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, D080985

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. FVI1600254)

LAURENCE CAURELIOLA MIXON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, Debra Harris, Judge. Affirmed. Laurence C. Mixon, in pro. per.; and Mi Kim, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2017, a jury convicted Laurence Caureliola Mixon of first degree murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187, subd. (a)) and found true an allegation that Mixon personally used a knife during the commission of the offense (§ 12022, 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. subd. (b)(1)). Mixon admitted a prior strike (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)) and a serious felony prior (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)). The court sentenced Mixon to an indeterminate term of 58 years to life in prison. Mixon appealed and this court affirmed the conviction and remanded for resentencing. (People v. Mixon (May 15, 2019, D074572).) In January and March 2022, Mixon filed petitions for resentencing under section 1172.6. The court appointed counsel, reviewed the record of conviction, and held a hearing. The court found the record showed Mixon was the actual killer of the victim. The court determined Mixon had not presented a prima facie case for resentencing under section 1172.6. Accordingly, the court denied the petition. Mixon 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 Mixon the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal. Mixon has responded with a supplemental brief, which we will discuss below. We will not include a statement of the facts of the offense in this opinion. The facts are well discussed in our prior opinion. 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 (Anders), counsel has identified a possible issue that was considered in 2 evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Whether the court abused its discretion in denying the petition without issuing an order to show cause. In his supplemental brief, Mixon discusses his version of the evidence at trial. He does not seriously challenge the finding he was the actual perpetrator of the murder. Rather, he points out his petition alleged he was convicted on a theory of felony murder and natural and probable consequences. He believes the court was required to accept his allegations as true and thus, could not deny his petition without an order to show cause and an evidentiary hearing. He argues the fact he was the actual killer should not make him ineligible for resentencing. In light of the record of conviction, which demonstrates his allegations are not true, we find Mixon’s supplemental brief does not raise any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. 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 Mixon on this appeal. DISPOSITION The order denying Mixon’s petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

IRION, J.

DATO, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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