Opinion
D082398
04-30-2024
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. THOMAS DIXON, Defendant and Appellant.
Athena Shudde, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County No. SCD226298, Kathleen M. Lewis, Judge.
Athena Shudde, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
In 2010, Thomas Dixon pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter (Pen. Code, § 192, subd. (a)) and admitted he used a knife in the commission of the offense. Dixon also admitted a strike prior (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)), a serious felony prior (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)), and six prison priors (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). Dixon was sentenced to a determinate term of 33 years in prison.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
In 2022, Dixon filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. The court appointed counsel and received briefing. The court concluded Dixon had stated a prima facie case for relief under the statute. The court issued an order to show cause and held an evidentiary hearing. The hearing was based on the transcript of the preliminary hearing and the transcript of the change of plea. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court denied Dixon's petition.
The trial court stated:
"The admissible evidence verifies that the petitioner, Mr. Dixon[,] was the only assailant and the actual killer. The manslaughter conviction was not based on the felony murder rule, the natural and probable cause consequence doctrine, or malice being imputed to the petitioner based on his participation in the crime.
"The evidence establishes that the victim was stabbed when attempted to pull the victim out of the vehicle during an argument. The petitioner admitted in his statement to the detective after being Mirandized that he stabbed the victim because the victim-well in a dispute over drugs and money.
"The victim was unarmed and attempted to flee when Mr. Dixon took out a knife and stabbed the victim repeatedly, and on the change of plea form, he admitted that he killed the victim, and also an individual observer [H.M.] observed the incident as did the driver of the car, [M.V].
"Their version of the incident matched Mr. Dixon's story to the detective. There was a stipulation that cause of death was multiple stab wounds, as indicated in the medical examiner's report. Additionally, when the petitioner entered his plea, he attested that he killed the victim and personally used a knife admitting that he was the actual killer.
"There was no evidence supporting any scenario of the homicide presented at the preliminary hearing or set forth in the factual basis of the plea.
"The court does find that the People have established beyond a reasonable doubt that he is not eligible for resentencing. The petition for resentencing is hereby denied."
Dixon 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 exercise its discretion and independently review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Dixon the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.
Counsel argues we should not apply the more restrictive review process outlined in People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 because there was an evidentiary hearing. We find it unnecessary to determine whether to apply Delgadillo here. We are exercising our discretion to conduct an independent review of the record for error in the same manner as we would in a case clearly governed by Wende.
We find it unnecessary to include a statement of facts from the evidentiary hearing.
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to review the record for error consistent with Wende. To assist the court in its review, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified two possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal.
1. Whether there is sufficient evidence to support the trial court's findings.
2. Whether the trial court's denial of relief was prejudicial error.
We have independently reviewed the record for error. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Dixon on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: IRION, J., CASTILLO, J.