Opinion
D081660
09-27-2023
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TIFFANY LATOYA NOWDEN, Defendant and Appellant.
Tiffany Latoya Nowden, in pro. per.; and Matthew A. Lopas, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County No. SCD256605, Desiree A. Bruce-Lyle, Judge.
Tiffany Latoya Nowden, in pro. per.; and Matthew A. Lopas, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
In 2015, Tiffany Latoya Nowden pleaded guilty to second degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) and admitted she personally used a deadly weapon in the commission of the offense (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). Nowden also admitted a serious felony prior conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)). The parties stipulated to a term of 20 years to life in prison.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
Nowden was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement.
In 2022, Nowden filed a form petition for resentencing under former section 1170.95 (now renumbered § 1172.6).
Judge Desiree Bruce-Lyle was assigned to hear the petition although she was not the original sentencing judge.
The court appointed counsel, received briefing, reviewed the record of conviction, and held a hearing.
At the hearing, the court reviewed the change of plea form in which Nowden admitted she personally used the deadly weapon and intentionally killed the victim without deliberation and premeditation. The court found the record established Nowden was the actual killer and was not eligible for relief under section 1172.6 as a matter of law. The court denied the petition without issuing an order to show cause.
Nowden 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 independently review the record for error as we would do in a case controlled by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We advised Nowden of her right to file her own brief on appeal. She has responded with a brief letter. Her submission does not address any possible issues for reversal of the ruling on the order that is currently before us. She focuses on her original sentence on the serious felony prior and asks the court to vacate the term for the prior. In short, Nowden does not raise any possibly meritorious issues for reversal of the current order.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
In her change of plea, Nowden admitted she intentionally killed the victim while personally using a deadly weapon.
DISCUSSION
As we have noted appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th 216. Counsel has asked 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 two possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal.
1. Was it prejudicial error to assign this petition to a different judge than the one who originally sentenced Nowden?
2. Does the record of conviction conclusively establish Nowden was ineligible for relief as a matter of law?
We have exercised our discretion to independently review the record for error consistent with the procedures in Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Nowden on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The order denying Nowden's petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: IRION, J., BUCHANAN, J.