People v. Goodson CA4/2

Filed 8/18/20 P. v. Goodson 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E074643
v. (Super.Ct.No. CR61218)
KURT LEE GOODSON, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. John D. Molloy, Judge.
Affirmed with directions.
Christopher Nalls, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Kurt Lee Goodson filed a petition for resentencing
pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95, which the court dismissed. After counsel for
defendant filed a notice of appeal, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel
1
has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal. 3d 436 (Wende)
and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case and
one potentially arguable issue: whether the court erred in denying defendant’s petition.
We affirm with directions.
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1
“[D]efendant was found in the driver’s seat of a Honda Civic that landed on the
hood of a King Video Cable repair truck after first hitting a pickup truck and then
spiraling through the air . . . . The driver of the pickup truck died as a result of the severe
injuries he sustained in the collision. Defendant denied he was driving the car at the time
of the collision . . . .” (Goodson, supra, E019189.) Later, at the hospital when
questioned by an officer, defendant stated that “‘he was going 50 to 60 miles an hour’
when he came to the intersection.” (Ibid.) Thereafter, the officer “wanted to question
him about the stolen Honda so she ‘read him his rights.’ Defendant then ‘declined’ to
talk and ‘wanted his lawyer.’” (Ibid.) A defense witness testified “that he was driving
and defendant was the passenger in the car that hit and killed the driver of the pickup
truck.” (Ibid.)
On August 6, 1996, a jury convicted defendant of second degree murder, the
unlawful taking or driving of a vehicle without the consent of the owner, and driving with
a suspended license. Defendant appealed. We affirmed the conviction but remanded the
1 We take judicial notice of the record in People v. Goodson (Apr. 21, 1998,
E019189) [nonpub. opn.] (Goodson), defendant’s appeal from the original judgment.
(Evid. Code, § 459.) We derive much of our factual recitation from the opinion in that
matter.
2
matter to the trial court to amend defendant’s sentence. After the court imposed a new
sentence on remand, defendant appealed again. In a nonpublished opinion from this
court dated July 16, 1999 (case No. E023697), this court again affirmed but remanded the
matter to the trial court with directions to, again, amend the sentence. The court
sentenced defendant to a determinate term of 10 years of imprisonment followed by a
consecutive term of 45 years to life.
On January 7, 2019, defendant filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal
Code section 1170.95. The People filed a response arguing the petition should be denied
because defendant was the actual killer. Defense counsel filed a reply in which she
contended the court should set the matter for an evidentiary hearing.
At the hearing on the petition, the People moved to dismiss the petition because
defendant “was the driver of a stolen car that collided with the victim’s car, killing him.
He was the actual killer. There are also letters from the defendant in imaging admitting
that he was the driver and guilty.” Defense counsel responded, “I don’t necessarily
disagree with the rendition of the facts in this case; however, based on the current status
of what’s in the supreme court, I would object for the record.” The court then dismissed
the matter.2
2 The reporter’s transcript reflects that the court dismissed the matter. The minute
order indicates the court denied the petition. We shall direct the court to correct the
minute order. (See People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal. 4th 1, 89 [The minute order “‘does not
control if different from the trial court’s oral judgment and may not add to or modify the
judgment it purports to digest or summarize.’”].) The reviewing court has the authority to
correct clerical errors in the minute order. (People v. Contreras (2009) 177 Cal. App. 4th
1296, 1300, fn. 3.)
3
II. DISCUSSION
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which
he has not done. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal. 4th 106, we
have independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no arguable issues.3
III. DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed. The court is directed to modify its January 17, 2020 minute
order to reflect that the court dismissed, rather than denied, defendant’s petition for
resentencing.
McKINSTER
J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ
P. J.
CODRINGTON
J.
3 We recognize that the court in People v. Cole (Aug. 3, 2020, B304328)
___ Cal.App.5th ___ [2020 Cal.App. Lexis 717], recently held “that Wende’s
constitutional underpinnings do not apply to appeals from the denial of postconviction
relief . . . .” (Cole, at pp. *1-*2.) Nonetheless, pursuant to its supervisory authority, Cole
determined to employ a quasi-Wende review to postjudgment cases, giving the defendant
the right to file a supplemental brief when defense counsel files a Wende brief. The court
would then dismiss the case if the defendant failed to file a supplemental brief or would
address the issues raised if defendant did file a supplemental brief. (Cole, at p. *2.)
Pursuant to the same supervisory authority, we elect to conduct a traditional Wende
review in criminal appeals from the denial or dismissal of postconviction avenues of
relief.
4