People v. Irvin CA4/1

Filed 10/15/24 P. v. Irvin CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D083053

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD201413)

WILLIE JAMES IRVIN,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Evan P. Kirvin, Judge. Affirmed. Jennifer A. Gambale, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2007, a jury convicted Willie James Irvin of attempted murder (Pen.

Code,1 §§ 187, subd. (a), 664) along with five other felonies. The jury found true firearms enhancements under sections 12022.53, subdivision (c) and 12022, subdivision (a)(1).

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

Irvin was sentenced to a term of 25 years in prison. Irvin appealed and this court affirmed the judgment in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Irvin (May 12, 2009, D052052).) In 2022, Irvin filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. The court appointed counsel and received briefing. The court determined Irvin had stated a prima facie case for relief under the statute and issued an order to show cause. The court thereafter held an evidentiary hearing. The evidence presented consisted of the transcript of the original trial. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court stated it considered the evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing. The court stated, ”Based on the evidence admitted at this evidentiary hearing, the court finds the People have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that petitioner is ineligible for resentencing due to the fact that the defendant was the actual shooter and that he acted with the specific intent to kill.” Irvin has 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 required by Wende. We offered Irvin the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. Since the evidentiary hearing was based only on the evidence admitted at trial, we find it unnecessary to repeat the evidence here. We have previously discussed the facts in our prior opinion.