People v. Tionson CA3

Filed 2/27/23 P. v. Tionson CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ----

THE PEOPLE, C096985

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. STK-CR-FE- 1991-0005809) v.

LARRY LAWRENCE TIONSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

In 1991, a jury found defendant Larry Lawrence Tionson guilty of first degree murder and found that he personally used a firearm to kill the victim. The trial court sentenced defendant to 25 years to life for murder, plus a consecutive four-year term for the firearm use. In January 2022, defendant filed a petition for resentencing under Penal

1

Code1 section 1172.6.2 The trial court denied defendant’s petition in September 2022, finding defendant failed to make a prima facie showing for relief. On appeal, defense counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, asking this court to review the record for error. Counsel advised defendant of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days from the date the opening brief was filed. Defendant did not file a supplemental brief. The California Supreme Court recently decided People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, holding that an appeal from the denial of postconviction relief under section 1172.6 does not implicate a constitutional right to counsel, and thus the procedures set out in Anders v. California (1967) 368 U.S. 738 and People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 do not apply. (Delgadillo, at p. 366.) However, as did the court in Delgadillo, we elect to independently review the record in the interest of judicial economy. (Id. at p. 371.) Having done so, we affirm the trial court’s order. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A detailed recitation of the underlying facts is unnecessary for this appeal. It suffices to say that, after defendant learned that Jesus Estrada had sideswiped defendant’s car, defendant left a house party and shot Estrada three times at close range with a nine- millimeter handgun, killing him instantly. Defendant then returned to the party. A jury found defendant guilty of first degree murder (§ 1987) and found true that he personally used a firearm (§ 12022.5). The trial court sentenced defendant to 29 years to life in prison, consisting of 25 years to life for first degree murder and four years