People v. Joiner CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D081169 · 2023-05-15 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from an order
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCN174120
Trial judge: James E. Simmons, Jr.
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), O'Rourke, Michele M. Castillo

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:35Z · confidence high

The trial court denied Joiner's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, finding he was ineligible for relief as a matter of law because he was the actual killer and not convicted under a theory of liability affected by Senate Bill 1437. The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial, conducting an independent review of the record and finding no arguable issues for reversal.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 “The court finds that petitioner has failed to make a prima facie showing and finds that he is ineligible for relief as a matter of law pursuant to Penal Code Section 1172.6.”	de novo	correct	agree with court The appellate court correctly applied the standard of review for a prima facie determination under section 1172.6, which is de novo. The trial court's finding that Joiner was the actual killer and not convicted under a theory of liability affected by Senate Bill 1437 (felony murder or natural and probable consequences) was supported by the record of conviction. Since Joiner was the sole perpetrator and actual killer, he is statutorily ineligible for relief under section 1172.6, which only applies to defendants convicted under those specific theories of vicarious liability. The appellate court's independent review confirmed this conclusion.

Authorities

relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Establishes the procedure for appointed appellate counsel to file a brief indicating no meritorious issues exist, requesting the court to independently review the record for error.
relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires the appellate court to independently review the record for error when appointed counsel cannot identify any potentially meritorious issues for reversal.
relied: People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952 — Clarifies that petitions for resentencing under section 1172.6 are not a general mechanism to challenge the original judgment but are limited to specific statutory eligibility criteria regarding theories of liability.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to file a brief identifying any potentially meritorious issues and requesting the court to independently review the record if no such issues are found.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly identifies the statutory ineligibility of the appellant based on his status as the actual killer and the absence of vicarious liability theories in his conviction. It appropriately conducts an independent review of the record as requested by counsel and finds no arguable issues, consistent with Wende and Anders procedures.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

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

The trial court denied Wardell Joiner's Penal Code section 1172.6 resentencing petition at the prima facie stage, finding from the record of conviction that he was the actual killer and was not convicted under any theory affected by Senate Bill 1437. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Delgadillo brief, the Court of Appeal exercised its discretion to independently review the record, considered Joiner's pro. per. brief, found no arguable issue, 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 petitioner failed to make a prima facie showing because he was the actual killer and was not convicted under felony murder, natural and probable consequences, or any other theory affected by Senate Bill 1437. “Based on the record of conviction, petitioner was the actual killer and petitioner was not convicted under any theory or liability affected by Senate Bill 1437.”	unclear	correct	agree with court Under People v. Lewis, a trial court at the prima facie stage may consult the record of conviction, including jury instructions, to determine whether the petitioner is ineligible as a matter of law. The opinion states the jury was not instructed on felony murder or natural and probable consequences and that Joiner was prosecuted and convicted as the sole perpetrator and actual killer; a petitioner convicted as the actual killer under a direct malice theory is outside the statute. Joiner's pro. per. arguments about jury instructions and absence of malice are attacks on the original judgment, which section 1172.6 does not permit. The appellate court did not expressly state a standard of review, but the result follows under any standard.

Authorities

relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — In an appeal from denial of a section 1172.6 petition where appointed counsel finds no arguable issues, Wende review is not constitutionally required, but the Court of Appeal must consider any supplemental brief the defendant files and may in its discretion independently review the record.
relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Procedure for independent appellate review of the record when appointed counsel identifies no arguable issues.
relied: People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952 — At the prima facie stage of a resentencing petition, the trial court may rely on the record of conviction to determine whether the petitioner is ineligible for relief as a matter of law; the statute is not a vehicle to relitigate the original judgment.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds no meritorious issues may file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, and the court reviews the record.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court correctly applied Delgadillo by considering Joiner's supplemental brief, exercised its discretion to review the record, and properly relied on Lewis to hold that an actual killer convicted without felony murder or natural and probable consequences instructions is ineligible as a matter of law. The opinion is thin: it does not state the standard of review for a prima facie denial, incorporates the facts by reference to a prior unpublished opinion, and does not expressly address the post-Senate Bill 775 'imputed malice' clause, though nothing suggests that clause could apply to a sole-perpetrator torture murder.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 5/15/23 P. v. Joiner 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, D081169

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN174120)

WARDELL NELSON JOINER,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, James E. Simmons, Jr., Judge. Affirmed. Wardell Nelson Joiner, in pro. per.; and Siri Shetty, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2005, a jury convicted Wardell Nelson Joiner of first degree murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187, subd. (a)) and found true a special circumstance that the murder also involved torture (§ 190.2(a)(18)). Joiner was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. Joiner appealed and this court affirmed the conviction in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Joiner (Dec. 12, 2006, D047296).) In 2022, Joiner filed a petition for resentencing under section 1170.95 (now renumbered section 1172.6). The court appointed counsel, received briefing, and held a hearing. After reviewing the record of conviction and hearing the arguments of counsel, the court found Joiner had not stated a prima facie case for relief under the statute and denied the petition without issuing an order to show cause. Joiner filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo) indicating counsel has not been able to identify any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to exercise its discretion to review the record for error as we would do under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Joiner has filed his own brief challenging the trial court’s decision to deny his petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. We will address Joiner’s submission later in this opinion. When the trial court denied Joiner’s petition it found Joiner was ineligible for relief as a matter of law. The court said: “Based on the record of conviction, petitioner was the actual killer and petitioner was not convicted under any theory or liability affected by Senate Bill 1437. [¶] The court finds that petitioner has failed to make a prima facie showing and finds that he is ineligible for relief as a matter of law pursuant to Penal Code Section 1172.6.”

2 DISCUSSION2 As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Delgadillo and asks the court to independently review the record for error. We will exercise our discretion and independently review the record for error and consider Joiner’s brief. After reviewing the briefs and the record of conviction, the trial court found Joiner was the sole perpetrator of the offense. In short, Joiner was the actual killer. He was not prosecuted as an aider and abettor. The jury was not instructed on theories of liability based on the felony murder rule or the natural and probable consequences doctrine. In his brief, Joiner does not actually address the basis for relief under section 1172.6. He does not deny he was the sole perpetrator and the actual killer. Instead, Joiner complains about the jury instructions and argues the jury could have found an absence of malice in this case. Petitions for resentencing under this statute are for cases where a defendant was not the killer but was held vicariously liable on one of several theories of liability identified in the statute. The statute is not simply another appellate opportunity to challenge the original judgment. (See People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952.) Joiner’s brief does not raise any arguably meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Consistent with counsel’s request for Wende review, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this 2 The facts of the offense are summarized in our prior opinion. We will not repeat them here. 3 appeal: Whether the trial court prejudicially erred in finding Joiner was not eligible for relief under the statute. We have reviewed the entire record consistent with the requirements of Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Joiner on this appeal. DISPOSITION The order denying Joiner’s petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

O’ROURKE, J.

CASTILLO, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Delgadillo S266305 · 2022-12-19
People v. Lewis S260598 · 2021-07-26
People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12