People v. Tidwell CA4/3

Filed 1/28/21 P. v. Tidwell CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G058924

v. (Super. Ct. No. FMB006847)

JOSEPH ALLEN TIDWELL, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, Bryan Foster, Judge. Affirmed. Christine Vento, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal and Collette C. Cavalier, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

Under Penal Code section 1170.95, an accomplice to the crime of murder 1 may petition a trial court to have a prior conviction vacated. The petitioner may be eligible for relief if he or she was convicted of murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine, or the former felony-murder rule, and the accomplice could no longer be found vicariously liable due to recent statutory changes. (§§ 188, 189.) In 2004, defendant Joseph Allen Tidwell drove into oncoming traffic and collided with another vehicle killing two of its occupants. A jury convicted Tidwell of several crimes including two counts of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated and two counts of second degree implied malice murder (commonly known as a “Watson murder”). (See People v. Watson (1981) 30 Cal.3d 290 (Watson).) Tidwell recently filed a section 1170.95 petition, which was denied by the trial court. Tidwell appeals from that ruling. Because Tidwell was the actual killer and not an accomplice, we affirm the ruling of the trial court.