People v. Nix CA4/1

Filed 9/13/22 P. v. Nix CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D080235

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. CRN21521)

WILLIAM WAYNE NIX, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Carlos O. Armour, Judge. Affirmed. Robert E. Boyce, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In July 1992, a jury convicted William Wayne Nix, Jr., of conspiracy to

commit murder (Pen. Code,1 § 182, subd. (a)(1)) and first degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)). The jury also found true an allegation that Nix was armed with a firearm (§ 12022, subd. (a)). In addition, the jury found that Nix

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

commanded, induced, solicited and assisted the commission for financial gain. (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(1).) Nix was sentenced to life in prison without parole. In 2015, Nix filed a petition for habeas corpus claiming he was entitled to relief in light of People v. Chui (2014) 59 Cal 4th 155. This court denied the petition finding as a person convicted of conspiracy to murder, the record established Nix intended that the victim was to be killed; thus, he harbored express malice. (In re Nix (June 8, 2015, D068151) [nonpub. opn.].)

In 2021, Nix filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6.2 The court appointed counsel, received briefing and reviewed the record of conviction. The court denied the petition without issuing an order to show cause. The court found Nix was not convicted of felony murder or on the basis of the doctrine of natural and probable consequences and was, thus, not eligible for relief under section 1172.6. Nix 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 granted Nix’s request for an extension of time to file his supplemental brief on or before August 31, 2022, but he did not respond.