Court Opinion

ID: 9352063
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-04 20:01:45.524656+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:57:51.182110
License: Public Domain

Filed 1/4/23 P. v. Mixon 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                 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                                          D080985

           Plaintiff and Respondent,

           v.                                                         (Super. Ct. No. FVI1600254)

 LAURENCE CAURELIOLA MIXON,

           Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Bernardino
County, Debra Harris, Judge. Affirmed.
         Laurence C. Mixon, in pro. per.; and Mi Kim, under appointment by the
Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
         In 2017, a jury convicted Laurence Caureliola Mixon of first degree

murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187, subd. (a)) and found true an allegation that
Mixon personally used a knife during the commission of the offense (§ 12022,

1        All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
subd. (b)(1)). Mixon admitted a prior strike (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)) and a
serious felony prior (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)).
      The court sentenced Mixon to an indeterminate term of 58 years to life
in prison. Mixon appealed and this court affirmed the conviction and
remanded for resentencing. (People v. Mixon (May 15, 2019, D074572).)
      In January and March 2022, Mixon filed petitions for resentencing
under section 1172.6.
      The court appointed counsel, reviewed the record of conviction, and
held a hearing. The court found the record showed Mixon was the actual
killer of the victim. The court determined Mixon had not presented a prima
facie case for resentencing under section 1172.6. Accordingly, the court
denied the petition.
      Mixon filed a timely notice of appeal.
      Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating counsel has not been able to identify any
arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to review the
record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Mixon the opportunity to
file his own brief on appeal. Mixon has responded with a supplemental brief,
which we will discuss below.
      We will not include a statement of the facts of the offense in this
opinion. The facts are well discussed in our prior opinion.
                                  DISCUSSION
      As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende 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

                                         2
evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Whether the court abused its
discretion in denying the petition without issuing an order to show cause.
      In his supplemental brief, Mixon discusses his version of the evidence
at trial. He does not seriously challenge the finding he was the actual
perpetrator of the murder. Rather, he points out his petition alleged he was
convicted on a theory of felony murder and natural and probable
consequences. He believes the court was required to accept his allegations as
true and thus, could not deny his petition without an order to show cause and
an evidentiary hearing. He argues the fact he was the actual killer should
not make him ineligible for resentencing. In light of the record of conviction,
which demonstrates his allegations are not true, we find Mixon’s
supplemental brief does not raise any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.
      We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders.
We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.
Competent counsel has represented Mixon on this appeal.
                                DISPOSITION
      The order denying Mixon’s petition for resentencing under
section 1172.6 is affirmed.

                                                      HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

IRION, J.

DATO, J.

                                       3