People v. Joiner CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from an order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCN174120
- Trial judge
- Bradley A. Weinreb
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), O'Rourke, Julia C. Kelety
Analysis
The trial court denied Joiner's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.91, finding him ineligible because his conviction for first-degree murder with a special circumstance did not fall within the scope of the statute. The Court of Appeal affirmed the order, finding no potentially meritorious issues for reversal after independent review of the record.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.91“Because the charge for which [p]etitioner was convicted does not fall within the purview of Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (b), the changes made by Senate Bill 865 are inapplicable to [p]etitioner.” | de novo | correct | agree with court The appellate court affirmed the trial court's determination that Joiner was ineligible for relief under section 1170.91 because his conviction for first-degree murder with a special circumstance finding does not fall within the statutory purview of the resentencing mechanism, which applies to offenses listed in section 1170, subdivision (b). |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Establishes the procedure for appointed appellate counsel to file a brief when they cannot identify potentially meritorious issues, requesting independent review by the court.
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires the appellate court to independently review the record for error when appointed counsel files a Wende brief.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to file a brief identifying any potentially meritorious issues and to request leave to withdraw if none are found.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly applies the statutory limitation of section 1170.91 to offenses listed in section 1170, subdivision (b), and properly conducts an independent review of the record as required by Wende and Delgadillo. The court also correctly dismisses Joiner's due process and equal protection arguments as lacking merit because the statute does not apply to his specific conviction.
The trial court denied Wardell Joiner's 2023 petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.91, finding that his first degree murder conviction with a torture special circumstance and resulting life-without-parole sentence made him ineligible because the statute applies only to determinate triad sentencing under section 1170, subdivision (b). On appeal, counsel filed a Delgadillo brief, Joiner filed a supplemental brief raising due process and equal protection claims and requesting a youthful offender hearing, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguably meritorious issue, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of section 1170.91 resentencing petition on the ground that a defendant sentenced to life without parole for special-circumstance first degree murder is ineligible for relief“The trial court denied the petition by written order finding Joiner’s conviction of first degree murder with a special circumstance found true rendered him ineligible for resentencing under section 1170.91.” | unclear | correct | agree with court Section 1170.91 operates by requiring the court to consider military-service-related trauma as a mitigating factor when selecting a term from the determinate triad under section 1170, subdivision (b). An LWOP sentence for special-circumstance murder involves no triad and no term selection, so there is nothing for the statute to operate on; published authority (e.g., People v. Estrada) has reached the same conclusion for indeterminate life terms. The court's conclusion is correct even though it cited no authority for it and did not state a standard of review. |
Rejection of Joiner's supplemental-brief argument that denying section 1170.91 relief violates due process and equal protection“He does not explain how denying him the benefits of an inapplicable statute is unlawful.” | de novo | correct | agree with court A conclusory constitutional claim unsupported by argument or authority may be rejected on that basis, and the Legislature may rationally limit a mitigation mechanism to sentences in which a term is actually selected. The court's brief treatment is adequate for a Delgadillo review, though it did not articulate a rational-basis analysis. |
Joiner's request that the appellate court order a youthful offender (Franklin-type) hearing“Joiner also asks this court to order the state to provide him with a youthful offender hearing, a matter well outside the scope of this appeal.” | unclear | not reached | agree with court The appeal was from an order denying a section 1170.91 petition; a request for a youthful offender hearing was never presented to the trial court in this proceeding and is not within the scope of the appeal from that order, so declining to address it was proper. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Sets the procedure for appeals from postconviction orders where appointed counsel finds no arguable issues; the Court of Appeal must address issues raised in a defendant's supplemental brief and may, in its discretion, independently review the record.
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Establishes independent appellate review of the record when appointed counsel identifies no arguable issues on a first appeal of right.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal frivolous should file a brief identifying anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
- missed: People v. Estrada (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 839 — Section 1170.91 relief is unavailable to a defendant serving an indeterminate life sentence because the statute applies only to selection of a term under the determinate sentencing triad of section 1170, subdivision (b).
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court reached the correct result: section 1170.91 governs selection of a determinate term under section 1170, subdivision (b), and an LWOP sentence involves no such selection, so the petition was properly denied and the constitutional and youthful-offender arguments were properly rejected or declined. The opinion, however, cites no authority for its substantive eligibility holding and does not mention published decisions such as People v. Estrada that directly support it, and it does not state a standard of review.
Opinion
Filed 9/25/23 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, D081925
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, Bradley A. Weinreb, 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 Joiner committed the murder by means of torture (§ 190.2 (a)(18)). The court sentenced Joiner to prison for life without parole.
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. In 2023, Joiner filed a petition for resentencing under section 1170.91, on the basis he suffered mental impairment as a result of his military service in the Iraq war. The trial court denied the petition by written order finding Joiner’s conviction of first degree murder with a special circumstance found true rendered him ineligible for resentencing under section 1170.91. The court stated: “Because the charge for which [p]etitioner was convicted does not fall within the purview of Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (b), the changes made by Senate Bill 865 are inapplicable to [p]etitioner.” Joiner filed a timely notice of appeal from the order denying his petition. Appellate counsel has filed a brief following the procedure outlined in People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216. 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 independently review the record for error in the same manner we would do if the case was controlled by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We advised Joiner of his right to file his own brief on appeal. Joiner has responded by filing a supplemental brief. We will discuss his submission later in this opinion. The facts of the underlying conviction are not relevant to our analysis of the issues presented by this appeal. We will omit a statement of facts in the current opinion. DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a brief following the procedure outlined in Delgadillo. Counsel 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 2 possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Did the trial court prejudicially err by determining Joiner was ineligible for relief under section 1170.91? In his supplemental brief, Joiner argues denying him relief under the statute denies him due process and equal protection. He does not explain how denying him the benefits of an inapplicable statute is unlawful. The statute where applicable provides a mechanism to mitigate punishment where the mental condition might impact the selection of the appropriate term. Here, Joiner has lawfully been sentenced to prison for life without parole. There is no term to be selected in such cases other than that which is mandated by statute. Joiner also asks this court to order the state to provide him with a youthful offender hearing, a matter well outside the scope of this appeal. Joiner has not raised any potentially meritorious issues for reversal in this appeal. We have exercised our discretion to independently review the record for error. We have not discovered any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Joiner on this appeal.
3 DISPOSITION The order denying Joiner’s petition for resentencing under section 1170.91 is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
O’ROURKE, J.
KELETY, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Delgadillo S266305 · 2022-12-19
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12