Opinion
D077266
06-08-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. YVONNE DEE LATHAM, Defendant and Appellant.
Patricia A. Scott, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. RIF137016) APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Riverside County, John D. Molloy, Judge. Affirmed. Patricia A. Scott, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In 2010, a jury convicted Yvonne Latham and her husband of second degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187) and child endangerment (§§ 273a, subd. (a) and 12022.95) resulting in the death of their child, in connection with the death of their child. Appellant was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 15 years to life.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
Latham appealed and this court affirmed the judgment in People v. Latham (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 319.
Latham's husband is not a party to this appeal.
In 2019, Latham filed a pro per petition for resentencing under section 1170.95, alleging she was convicted of felony murder, or murder under a natural and probable consequences theory. The trial court appointed counsel for Latham. At a subsequent hearing, the trial court found Latham was not convicted of felony murder or on a natural and probable consequences theory. Rather she and her husband were active participants in the abuse that caused the death of the child. The court summarily denied the petition.
Latham filed a timely notice of appeal.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), indicating she has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Latham the opportunity to file her own brief on appeal, but she has not responded.
The facts of the underlying offense are set forth in our prior opinion. We will not repeat them here.
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and requests this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. To assist the court in its review of the record, and in compliance with Anders v California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified an issue she considered in evaluating the merits of this appeal: whether the court erred when it denied Latham's petition for resentencing.
We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Latham on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The order denying Latham's petition filed under section 1170.95 is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J. WE CONCUR: BENKE, Acting P. J. GUERRERO, J.