Court Opinion

ID: 9879236
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-27 18:03:42.768502+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:29:11.823350
License: Public Domain

Filed 9/27/23 P. v. Nowden 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                 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                                          D081660

         Plaintiff and Respondent,

         v.                                                          (Super. Ct. No. SCD256605)

TIFFANY LATOYA NOWDEN,

         Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Desiree A. Bruce-Lyle, Judge. Affirmed.
         Tiffany Latoya Nowden, in pro. per.; and Matthew A. Lopas, under
appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
         In 2015, Tiffany Latoya Nowden pleaded guilty to second degree

murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187, subd. (a)) and admitted she personally used a
deadly weapon in the commission of the offense (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)).

1        All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
Nowden also admitted a serious felony prior conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)).
The parties stipulated to a term of 20 years to life in prison.
      Nowden was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement.
      In 2022, Nowden filed a form petition for resentencing under former
section 1170.95 (now renumbered § 1172.6).
      Judge Desiree Bruce-Lyle was assigned to hear the petition although
she was not the original sentencing judge.
      The court appointed counsel, received briefing, reviewed the record of
conviction, and held a hearing.
      At the hearing, the court reviewed the change of plea form in which
Nowden admitted she personally used the deadly weapon and intentionally
killed the victim without deliberation and premeditation. The court found
the record established Nowden was the actual killer and was not eligible for
relief under section 1172.6 as a matter of law. The court denied the petition
without issuing an order to show cause.
      Nowden filed a timely notice of appeal.
      Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo
(2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo) indicating counsel has not been able to
identify any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel
asks the court to exercise its discretion to independently review the record for
error as we would do in a case controlled by People v. Wende (1979) 25
Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We advised Nowden of her right to file her own brief on
appeal. She has responded with a brief letter. Her submission does not
address any possible issues for reversal of the ruling on the order that is
currently before us. She focuses on her original sentence on the serious
felony prior and asks the court to vacate the term for the prior. In short,

                                        2
Nowden does not raise any possibly meritorious issues for reversal of the
current order.
                            STATEMENT OF FACTS
      In her change of plea, Nowden admitted she intentionally killed the
victim while personally using a deadly weapon.
                                  DISCUSSION
   As we have noted appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v
Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th 216. Counsel has asked 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 two possible issues that were considered in evaluating
the potential merits of this appeal.
   1. Was it prejudicial error to assign this petition to a different judge than
the one who originally sentenced Nowden?
   2. Does the record of conviction conclusively establish Nowden was
ineligible for relief as a matter of law?
   We have exercised our discretion to independently review the record for
error consistent with the procedures in Wende and Anders. We have not
discovered any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal.
Competent counsel has represented Nowden on this appeal.

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

                                                   HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

IRION, J.

BUCHANAN, J.

                                     4