People v. Irvin CA4/1 ( 2024 )

Filed 10/15/24 P. v. Irvin CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D083053
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD201413)
WILLIE JAMES IRVIN,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Evan P. Kirvin, Judge. Affirmed.
Jennifer A. Gambale, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In 2007, a jury convicted Willie James Irvin of attempted murder (Pen.
Code,1 §§ 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).
1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
Irvin was sentenced to a term of 25 years in prison.
Irvin appealed and this court affirmed the judgment in an unpublished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.
2
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.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
IRION, J.
RUBIN, J.
3