Filed 1/12/23 P. v. Valentine CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JOE LOUIS VALENTINE,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B319633

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. A366030)

THE COURT:

Joe Louis Valentine (defendant) appeals the order of the 

superior court denying his petition for resentencing under Penal 

Code1 section 1172.6 (former section 1170.95).2 We appointed 

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code 

unless otherwise indicated.
2

counsel to represent defendant on appeal. After an examination 

of the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and 

asking this court to independently review the record. Defendant 

filed his own supplemental brief, in propria persona.

Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition 

more favorable to defendant, we affirm.

BACKGROUND3

In January 1981, defendant and other gang members 

decided to avenge the death of one of their own by targeting

members of a rival gang. Defendant, armed with a firearm, went 

to a gym located in the rival gang’s territory, confronted several 

people and fired one shot into the ceiling. As defendant exited 

the gym, he exchanged words with another man and then shot 

him in the head, killing him. Defendant was convicted by jury of 

conspiracy to commit murder (§§ 182, 187) with a true finding on 

the allegation that a principal was armed with a firearm in the 

commission of the offense (§ 12022, subd. (a)). The trial court 

sentenced defendant to a state prison term of 26 years to life 

comprised of 25 years to life for the conspiracy to commit murder 

and one additional year for the firearm enhancement. 

On appeal from the judgment of conviction, we modified the 

judgment to correct the abstract of judgment, which had 

erroneously documented a sentence of 16 years for defendant

2 Effective June 30, 2022, section 1170.95 was renumbered 

section 1172.6, with no change in text (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10). 

For the sake of simplicity, we will refer to the section by its new 

numbering only. 

3 The following facts are drawn from this court’s unpublished 

decision in defendant’s direct appeal from his conviction. (People 

v. Valentine (Oct. 3, 1983, 2 Crim. No. 42591) [nonpub. opn.].)
3

(rather than the 26 years to life sentence orally imposed by the 

trial court). In all other respects, we affirmed the judgment. 

On January 3, 2022, defendant filed, in propria persona, a 

petition for resentencing pursuant to section 1172.6.

4

On March 3, 2022, the trial court summarily denied the 

petition for resentencing stating, in pertinent part, “defendant’s 

jury trial resulted in conviction on April 20, 1982, of conspiracy to 

commit murder . . . consequently, . . . defendant fails to meet the 

requirements of Penal Code section [1172.6] and is statutorily 

ineligible for such relief.”

Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal from the order. 

DISCUSSION

Because the instant appeal is not from his conviction, 

defendant is not entitled to our independent review of the record 

pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) or its 

federal constitutional counterpart, Anders v. California (1967) 

386 U.S. 738. (People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 221-

222, 224, 230; see People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 119,

(Kelly) [independent judicial review mandated by Anders applies 

only to first appeal as of right]; People v. Serrano (2012) 211 

Cal.App.4th 496, 503 (Serrano).) However, he is entitled to 

appellate consideration of the contentions raised in his 

supplemental brief. (See Serrano, at p. 503.)

In his supplemental brief, defendant contends that the 

evidence was insufficient to convict him of conspiracy to commit 

murder. The argument defendant raises in his supplemental 

brief constitutes a collateral attack on the judgment not within 

4 On February 17, 2022, defendant filed a three-page 

addendum to his section 1172.6 petition for resentencing. 
4

the purview of section 1172.6 nor, therefore, cognizable on appeal 

from an order denying relief under that statute.5

In conclusion, based on our examination of the entire 

record, we are satisfied that defendant’s attorney has fully 

complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues 

exist. (Kelly, supra, 40 Cal.4th at pp. 109-110; Wende, supra, 25 

Cal.3d at p. 441.)

DISPOSITION

The order denying defendant’s petition for resentencing 

pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.6 is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

——————————————————————————————

ASHMANN-GERST, Acting P. J., CHAVEZ, J., HOFFSTADT, J.

5 Defendant also requests judicial notice of a recent 

California Supreme Court ruling discussing the sufficiency of 

evidence required to support a conviction for conspiracy to 

commit murder. We decline to grant judicial notice for the reason 

stated above.