Court Opinion

ID: 9404640
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-23 18:03:27.987541+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:15.965580
License: Public Domain

Filed 6/23/23 P. v. Washington CA2/4

   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

 THE PEOPLE,                                                 B322462

      Plaintiff and                                          (Los Angeles County
 Respondent,                                                 Super. Ct. No. YA038676)

           v.

 ARTIS MAURICE
 WASHINGTON,

      Defendant and
 Appellant.

     APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Amy N. Carter, Judge. Affirmed.
     Kathleen Caverly, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
     No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
       Appellant Artis Washington appeals the denial of his
petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 (former
section 1170.95).1 In 1998, appellant was convicted of first degree
murder and attempted premeditated murder. We affirmed his
conviction on appeal in our prior opinion, People v. Washington
(Aug. 22, 2000, B139841) [nonpub. opn.]. In 2021, appellant filed
a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. The trial court
denied the petition, finding that appellant was ineligible for
relief. On appeal, appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief
raising no issues and requesting that this court independently
review the record for arguable issues pursuant to People v. Wende
(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We have conducted an
independent examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende,
supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and conclude no arguable issues exist. We
therefore affirm.
       FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2
       Appellant was a member of the Osage Legend Crips, a
criminal street gang. On April 15, 1998, appellant pulled a semi-
automatic gun from under his shirt and shot two young men in a
car, one of whom was wearing a red shirt, after they denied being
members of a rival Blood gang. One of the men was killed and

      1  Effective June 30, 2022, Penal Code section 1170.95 was
renumbered section 1172.6, with no change in text (Stats. 2022,
ch. 58, § 10). We hereafter refer to the statute as section 1172.6.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless
otherwise indicated.
       2 On our own motion, we take judicial notice of our prior

opinion in this matter, People v. Washington (Aug. 22, 2000,
B139841) [nonpub. opn.]. The procedural and factual background
set forth here is drawn from this opinion.

                                2
the other was seriously wounded. The surviving victim identified
appellant as the shooter in a photographic and live lineup.
       The jury found appellant guilty of first degree murder
(§ 187, subd. (a); count one) and attempted premeditated murder
(§664/187, subd. (a); count two). The jury also found true the
enhancement allegations that appellant personally and
intentionally discharged a handgun as to both counts (§ 12022.53,
subds. (b)-(d), and personally inflicted great bodily injury as to
count two (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)).
       Appellant was sentenced to a total term of 75 years to life.
The sentence consisted of 25 years to life for count one as the
base offense, a life term on count two, and two consecutive terms
of 25 years to life for the enhancements on each count under
section 12022.53, subdivision (d). The court stayed the terms for
the remaining enhancements. Appellant appealed his conviction
and his counsel filed a brief requesting Wende review. In our
prior opinion, we found that upon review of the record, no
arguable issued existed and affirmed the judgment.
       In January 2021, appellant filed a petition for resentencing
under section 1172.6. Appellant asserted that he had been
convicted of murder under the felony murder rule or natural and
probable consequences doctrine and could not now be convicted of
first or second degree murder because of changes made to
sections 188 and 189.
       The trial court appointed counsel for appellant and both
parties filed briefs. The prosecution argued that appellant was
ineligible for resentencing because he was convicted as the actual
killer. The prosecution attached as exhibits a copy of our prior
appellate opinion and the verdict forms. In reply, appellant’s
counsel argued that he had made a prima facie showing sufficient

                                3
to proceed to a hearing. The prosecution submitted a
supplemental response, arguing that appellant was also ineligible
because the jury was not instructed as to felony murder or
natural and probable consequences theories of liability. The
prosecution also attached a copy of the jury instructions as an
exhibit. The court provided appellant’s counsel the opportunity
to further respond, and continued the matter to allow counsel to
review the trial transcript.
       The court held a hearing on June 9, 2022 regarding
whether to issue an order to show cause. Appellant was present
with appointed counsel. Appellant’s counsel argued that he had
made the “minimal showing” required for the issuance of an order
to show cause.
       The trial court denied the petition, finding that appellant
failed to establish a prima facie case that he was entitled to relief.
The court cited the jury instructions, finding that “the only
instructions given related to a single actual killer and attempted
murderer acting alone.” Accordingly, the court denied the
petition, concluding that appellant was ineligible for relief as a
matter of law. Appellant timely appealed.
       On appeal, appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief
requesting that we independently review the record for error.
(Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.) We notified appellant that
he had the right to file a supplemental brief, but did not advise
him in that letter that his appeal could be dismissed if he failed
to respond.3 Appellant did not file a supplemental brief.

      3The same day we sent notice to appellant, our Supreme
Court decided in People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216
(Delgadillo) that when appointed counsel finds no arguable issues

                                  4
                          DISCUSSION
      We exercise our discretion to conduct a Wende review. (See
Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.) Having examined the
record, we conclude no arguable issues exist. By virtue of
counsel’s compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of
the record, appellant has received adequate and effective
appellate review of the judgment. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528
U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110; Wende,
supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 443.)
                          DISPOSITION
      The judgment is affirmed.
  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                            COLLINS, J.

We concur:

CURREY, ACTING, P.J.                       DAUM, J.

in an appeal from the denial of a section 1172.6 petition, “(1)
counsel should file a brief informing the court of that
determination, including a concise recitation of the facts bearing
on the denial of the petition; and (2) the court should send, with a
copy of counsel’s brief, notice to the defendant, informing the
defendant of the right to file a supplemental letter or brief and
that if no letter or brief is filed within 30 days, the court may
dismiss the matter.” (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 231-
232.)

      
       Judge of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, assigned
by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the
California Constitution.

                                 5