Court Opinion

ID: 9412077
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-28 20:03:55.39565+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:27.068216
License: Public Domain

Filed 7/28/23 P. v. Southerward 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                 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                                          D081581

         Plaintiff and Respondent,

         v.                                                          (Super. Ct. No. SCN419010)

QUIOAN SOUTHERWARD,

         Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
James E. Simmons, Judge. Affirmed.
         Quioan Southerward, in pro. per.; and James M. Crawford, under
appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
         In March 2022, Quioan Southerward entered into a plea agreement in

which he pleaded guilty to one count of attempted murder (Pen. Code,1
§§ 187 & 664), admitted he personally used a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)),
that he personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim (§ 12022.7,

1        All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
subd. (a)), and admitted a prior strike (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)). The parties
stipulated he would be sentenced to a term of 13 years in prison.
      The court ultimately sentenced Southerward to a determinate term of
13 years.
      In October 2022, Southerward filed a petition for resentencing under
section 1172.6. The court appointed counsel, received briefing, and reviewed
the record of conviction. Following a hearing, the trial court found
Southerward had not stated a prima facie case for resentencing under the
statute. The court denied the petition without issuing an order to show
cause.
      At the hearing, the court found that Southerward “was a direct
perpetrator to the crime of attempted murder. He admitted as such in his
factual basis on his change of plea form. He admitted to being the individual
who personally and intentionally discharged the firearm in this case, who
committed the crime with—with express malice to commit the crime.
Therefore, he is not eligible for relief under Penal Code section 1172.6.”
      Southerward filed a timely notice of appeal.
      Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to the directions provided
by People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo), indicating counsel
has not been able to identify any meritorious issues for reversal on appeal.
Counsel asks the court to exercise its discretion to conduct an independent
review of the record similar to the procedure established in People v. Wende
(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We notified Southerward of his right to file his
own brief on appeal. Southerward has responded by filing a supplemental
brief. We will discuss the supplemental brief later in this opinion. This
appeal arises from a postjudgment motion after a plea of guilty. We do not
find it necessary to construct a statement of facts for this appeal.

                                        2
                                  DISUSSION
      As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Delgadillo brief and
asks the court 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 that was considered
in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Whether the trial court
erred in summarily denying Southerward’s petition without issuing an order
show cause.
      In his supplemental brief, Southerward raises several issues that do
not address the propriety of the trial court’s conclusion Southerward was a
direct perpetrator who personally and intentionally discharged the firearm
that caused the victim’s injury. Instead, Southerward argues we should stay
the three year term for the infliction of great bodily injury. Somehow
Southerward reasons recent legislation relating to section 654 should require
a modification of his sentence. Southerward does not discuss any possible
errors in the trial court’s ruling on the petition for resentencing under
section 1172.6. Southerward has not identified any arguably meritorious
issues with regard to the order currently before us.
      We have exercised our discretion to independently review the record for
error. Consistent with the procedures established in Wende and Anders. We
have not discovered any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal.
Competent counsel has represented Southerward on this appeal.

                                        3
                              DISPOSITION
      The order denying Southerward’s petition for resentencing under
section 1172.6 is affirmed.

                                                             HUFFMAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

O’ROURKE, J.

                                     4