Opinion
D083053
10-15-2024
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WILLIE JAMES IRVIN, Defendant and Appellant.
Jennifer A. Gambale, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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, Super. Ct. No. SCD201413, Evan P. Kirvin, Judge.
Jennifer A. Gambale, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
In 2007, a jury convicted Willie James Irvin of attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 664) along with five other felonies. The jury found true firearms enhancements under sections 12022.53, subdivision (c) and 12022, subdivision (a)(1). Irvin was sentenced to a term of 25 years in prison.
All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
Irvin appealed and this court affirmed the judgment in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Irvin (May 12, 2009, D052052).)
In 2022, Irvin filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. The court appointed counsel and received briefing. The court determined Irvin had stated a prima facie case for relief under the statute and issued an order to show cause.
The court thereafter held an evidentiary hearing. The evidence presented consisted of the transcript of the original trial.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the court stated it considered the evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing. The court stated, "Based on the evidence admitted at this evidentiary hearing, the court finds the People have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that petitioner is ineligible for resentencing due to the fact that the defendant was the actual shooter and that he acted with the specific intent to kill."
Irvin has 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 required by Wende.
We offered Irvin the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.
Since the evidentiary hearing was based only on the evidence admitted at trial, we find it unnecessary to repeat the evidence here. We have previously discussed the facts in our prior opinion.
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and 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 possible issue which was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Whether the trial court's decision denying Irvin's petition was supported by sufficient evidence.
We have reviewed the record for error as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Irvin on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: IRION, J., RUBIN, J.