People v. Worthy CA4/2 ( 2022 )

Filed 10/11/22 P. v. Worthy CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E079047
v. (Super.Ct.No. FWV17003997)
CARMEN NICOLE WORTHY, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Ingrid Adamson
Uhler, Judge. Affirmed.
Mark D. Johnson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Carmen Nicole Worthy appeals from a trial court’s order
denying her petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95. For the reasons
forth post, we affirm the court’s order.
1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On May 10, 2018, a first amended information charged defendant and her
codefendant John Corey Broyles with one count of murder (Pen. Code, §187, subd. (a))
for killing the victim. On May 30, 2018, a jury found “defendant Guilty as to Count 001,
PC 187(A)-F: Murder.” On July 26, 2018, the trial court sentenced defendant to 25
years to life.
Defendant appealed from her underlying conviction. While her direct appeal was
pending, defendant filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95.
The trial court found defendant ineligible for relief. Defendant appealed from the trial
court’s denial of her motion for resentencing.
On April 7, 2020, we issued an unpublished opinion on the direct appeal in People
v. Broyles (April 7, 2020, E071002) [nonpub. opn.]. We found that “the trial court
erroneously instructed the jury [regarding deliberation and premeditation] such that it
believed it could find [defendant] guilty of first degree murder without finding that she
acted with deliberation.” After reviewing the record in the case, however, we stated
‘ “that it would have been ‘virtually impossible’ ” ’ for [defendant] to have acted
‘ “without at least a brief period of deliberation and premeditation.” ’ We, therefore,
concluded that the “evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury
would have found that [defendant] aided and abetted Broyles in the murder of [the
victim] willfully, deliberately, and with premeditation.”
2
On May 19, 2021, we issued an unpublished opinion on defendant’s appeal from
the denial of her motion for resentencing in People v. Worthy (May 19, 2021, E076125)
[nonpub. opn.]. We found, “[h]ere, the trial court correctly concluded that [defendant]
was statutorily ineligible for relief [under Penal Code section 1170.95] as a matter of law
based on the record of conviction.” Therefore, we affirmed the trial court’s order
denying defendant’s petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95.
On March 21, 2022, defendant filed another petition for resentencing. On April 5,
2022, the prosecutor filed a “Notice of Motion and Motion to Strike the Defendant’s
Petition for Resentencing; Request for Judicial Notice” to which it attached our two prior
opinions. On April 8, 2022, the trial court summarily denied defendant’s petition.
On May 18, 2022, defendant filed a notice of appeal.
FACTUAL HISTORY 1
In March 2000, defendant was living with her cousin, the victim. Defendant
called the victim’s mother (defendant’s aunt) and complained that the victim was “cutting
the weed” and had not been “bringing what he’s supposed to be bringing.” Defendant
sounded “[a]gitated” and “aggressive.” Defendant’s aunt thought the call was “very
unusual” because she had not heard from defendant “in a long time.” Defendant’s aunt
“cut [the conversation] real short” because she did not like defendant’s “attitude and her
way of talking” and told defendant that she would talk to the victim.
1The factual background is taken from this court’s nonpublished opinion from
Worthy’s direct appeal in case No. E071002. (People v. Broyles, supra, E071002.)
3
Around the same time, C.D., who was 15 years old at the time, overheard
defendant say to Broyles something to the effect that she knew someone with “some
money coming in” and that she “wanted him dead” and “wanted somebody to do it.”
Sometime in the next few days, Broyles left defendant’s apartment with the
victim. Later that evening, Broyles entered defendant’s apartment and said he “did it.”
Defendant responded, “ ‘Are you for real?’ ” “ ‘Oh, my God.’ ”
Defendant, C.D., and Broyles went outside to the victim’s car. Broyles opened the
trunk, and the victim was inside. Broyles said he shot the victim in the head using a
shampoo bottle as a silencer. Broyles and defendant’s boyfriend also “had to beat [the
victim] up to put him in the trunk” because “he didn’t die right off the bat.” The victim
then made a “loud snoring noise,” so Broyles told defendant to go get knives. Defendant
returned with two knives and handed one to Broyles. Broyles stabbed the victim several
times, including once in the neck like he was trying to “cut off [the victim’s] air
circulation.” C.D. saw defendant “thrusting” the knife at the victim, but he was not sure
whether she stabbed the victim. The victim stopped making noises. Defendant and
Broyles then discussed “what they were going to do with the body and how they were . . .
going to do it.”
Broyles, his brother, and C.D. drove to the mountains to dispose of the victim’s
body. Broyles parked the car on a dirt road. C.D. tried to help Broyles lift the victim’s
body from the trunk, but they could not lift it. Broyles and his brother successfully lifted
the victim’s body from the trunk and threw it down a hill. Broyles asked C.D. to hit the
4
victim’s teeth out with a hammer, but C.D. refused. Broyles poured gas on the body and
set it on fire. They then left the scene.
DISCUSSION
After defendant appealed, and upon her request, this court appointed counsel to
represent her. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25
Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 setting forth a statement of the
case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues, and has requested this court to
undertake a review of the entire record. Pursuant to Anders, counsel identified the
following issue to assist the court in its search of the record for error:
1. “Did the record justify the trial court’s denial of appellant’s petition for
resentencing?”
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and she
has not done so.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have
independently reviewed the record for potential error. We are satisfied that defendant’s
attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issue
exists. (Kelly, at p. 126; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442.)
5
DISPOSITION
The trial court’s denial of defendant’s petition for resentencing is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER
J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ
P. J.
SLOUGH
J.
6