Filed 11/9/22 P. v. Woods 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

EARNEST C. WOODS,

Defendant and Appellant.

 D080417

 (Super. Ct. No. CR83908)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, 

Joan P. Weber, Judge. Affirmed.

Christine M. Aros, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 

Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Earnest C. Woods appeals from an order denying his petition to vacate 

his murder conviction and for resentencing under former Penal Code section 

1170.95 (now section 1172.6).1 His appointed appellate counsel filed an 

1 Section 1170.95 was amended effective January 1, 2022 and then 

renumbered as section 1172.6 without substantive change on June 30, 2022. 

(See Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10, (Assem. Bill No. 200).) We refer to the subject 
2

opening brief raising no arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 

436 (Wende); Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders).) Woods also 

filed a supplemental brief on his own behalf.

We have independently reviewed the record and find no arguable issue 

that would result in a modification or reversal of the trial court’s order.2 

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

During a dispute in a parking lot outside of a dance club, Woods aimed 

and fired a gun into a man’s chest, killing him. A jury convicted Woods in 

1987 of second degree murder (§ 187) and found true an allegation that he 

personally used a firearm (§ 12022.5). The court sentenced Woods to a term 

of 15 years to life for second degree murder plus two consecutive years for the 

firearm enhancement. We affirmed the conviction on direct appeal in an 

unpublished opinion. (People v. Woods (Dec. 23, 1988, D06442) [nonpub. 

opn.].) We concluded the trial court erroneously instructed the jury on the 

law of implied malice under CALJIC No. 8.11, but that the error was 

harmless beyond a reasonable doubt “given the parties’ approaches to the 

case combined with the overwhelming evidence supporting the prosecution’s 

statute by its current number throughout this opinion. All further statutory 

references are to the Penal Code.

2 We recognize some courts have ruled that a defendant has no right to 

Wende/Anders review in an appeal from the denial of a section 1172.6 petition 

for resentencing. (See, e.g., People v. Figueras (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 108, 

110–113.) Other courts have concluded that Wende/Anders review is not 

required, but that appellate courts have discretion to conduct such a review 

in the interests of justice. (People v. Gallo (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 594, 598–

599.) Because this issue is currently pending before the Supreme Court

(People v. Delgadillo (Nov. 18, 2020, No. B30441), review granted Feb. 17, 

2021, S266305), we have opted to conduct a Wende/Anders review.
3

theory Woods intended to kill [the victim] or at minimum appreciated the 

risk involved in his conduct . . . .”

In 2019, the trial court denied Woods’s petition for resentencing under 

former section 1170.95 (now § 1172.6), finding Woods was not convicted of 

murder based on felony murder or the natural and probable consequences 

doctrine, but was convicted as the actual killer. We affirmed the order in an

unpublished opinion. (People v. Woods (Oct. 7, 2019, D075613) [nonpub. 

opn.].)

Woods filed a second petition for resentencing in October 2021,

contending he was convicted of second degree murder under either the felony 

murder rule or the natural and probable consequences doctrine and that he 

was eligible for resentencing based on amendments to sections 188 and 189

that became effective in 2019. The People opposed the petition, contending 

Woods failed to meet his prima facie burden. Woods’s appointed counsel 

submitted a reply arguing he had made a prima facia showing that he may be 

entitled to relief and the matter should proceed to a hearing where the People 

would be required to show he is not entitled to relief. 

The court considered the briefing and oral arguments. Woods’s counsel 

argued the matter should proceed to an evidentiary hearing because the 

record of conviction indicated the jury was instructed with language in 

CALJIC No. 8.11 defining implied malice in terms of an intentional act “the 

natural consequences of which are dangerous to life,”3 which Woods’s counsel 

3 As given at trial, CALJIC No. 8.11 defined implied malice as follows: 

“Malice is implied when the killing results from an intentional act involving a 

high degree of probability that it will result in death, which act is done for a 

base, antisocial purpose and with a wanton regard [sic] for human life, or 

when the killing results from an intentional act, the natural consequences of 

which are dangerous to life, which act was deliberately performed by a person 
4

argued was similar to the natural and probable consequences doctrine. The 

People argued that the court previously denied a petition for resentencing 

after finding that he actually and intentionally killed the victim, which our 

court affirmed on appeal. The People argued this second successive petition 

should be denied based on collateral estoppel because he did not raise new 

grounds for relief. Even if the petition was proper, the People argued he was 

ineligible for relief based on the jury’s findings. 

The court agreed the petition was successive and that Woods raised no 

new issues. Nevertheless, the court found, after considering the record of 

conviction and the arguments, that Woods was ineligible for relief. The court 

concluded that Woods was not convicted under a theory of felony murder or 

the natural and probable consequences doctrine. Instead, the jury found that 

Woods shot the gun and he was the direct perpetrator of the homicide. There 

was no evidence anyone else was present. 

Woods filed a timely notice of appeal. His appointed appellate counsel 

filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking us to review the record for 

error under Wende and Anders. The opening brief identified two potential 

issues to assist this court in conducting its independent review of the record: 

(1) whether the trial court erred in denying appellant’s petition for 

resentencing; and (2) whether the use of the phrase “natural and probable 

consequences” in the definition of implied malice given at trial (CALJIC 

No. 8.11) made Woods eligible for relief under section 1172.6. 

Woods filed his own supplemental brief again arguing that he is eligible 

for relief because the improper instruction of the jury with CALJIC No. 8.11 

regarding implied malice permitted them to find him guilty under the 

who knows that his conduct endangers the life of another and who acts with 

conscious disregard for life.” 
5

natural and probable consequences doctrine. He also argued he did not have 

effective assistance of counsel and that his conviction violated his rights 

under the United States Constitution and the Racial Justice Act (Stats. 2020, 

ch. 317, § 3.5). 

DISCUSSION

We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. 

We have also considered the issues identified by counsel in the opening brief 

and by Woods in his supplemental brief. We have not discovered any 

arguable issue that would result in a reversal or modification of the trial 

court’s ruling. Competent counsel has represented Woods in this appeal. 

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order. 

DISPOSITION

The order denying Woods’s petition for resentencing under section 

1172.6 is affirmed.

BUCHANAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

HUFFMAN, J.