People v. Tuggles CA3

Filed 6/27/24 P. v. Tuggles CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C097873

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 05F02470)

v.

JOSHUA TUGGLES,

Defendant and Appellant.

In 2006, a jury found defendant Joshua Tuggles guilty of first degree murder. In 2020, defendant filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6.1 The trial court denied the petition after an evidentiary hearing, and defendant appeals from that order of denial. His appellate counsel filed a brief raising no arguable issues under

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. Effective June 30, 2022, section 1170.95 was renumbered section 1172.6, with no change in text. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) Although defendant’s petition refers to former section 1170.95, we will refer to section 1172.6 throughout this opinion.

1

People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 and People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and asks that we exercise our discretion to review the record for arguable issues on appeal. Having done so, we affirm. BACKGROUND After a trial in 2006, a jury found defendant guilty of first degree murder and found true an allegation that a principal was armed with a firearm during the commission of the murder. At trial, witnesses testified about a series of interactions between defendant, codefendant Tyrone Mollett, the victim, and their respective groups of friends. As relevant here, the key issue was what role defendant played when codefendant shot the victim with a shotgun. Eugene Shands, a codefendant who testified for the prosecution as part of a plea agreement, said defendant gave codefendant Mollett a shotgun after Mollett said he would “go over there and blast them myself,” in reference to the victim and his friends. Shortly thereafter, Mollett was arguing with the victim and defendant ran over to Mollett to hand him the shotgun again. Mollett shot the victim and the three fled, along with two others. Shands later confronted defendant and asked him why he brought a gun; defendant apologized, saying, “I don’t know, Eugene, I am sorry, I am sorry.” Other witnesses testified defendant had a shotgun that he kept in his room and had made comments about shooting down the victim’s street and about the victim’s death. Defendant testified and denied bringing a shotgun when they confronted the victim. Defendant stayed with the car (a Bronco) while Mollett confronted the victim. After the shooting, Shands asked defendant if he brought the gun and defendant replied, “Hell no.” After conviction, defendant appealed and this court affirmed the judgment. (People v. Tuggles et al. (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 339, 389.) In 2020, defendant filed multiple petitions for resentencing under section 1172.6. The trial court issued an order to show cause and set an evidentiary hearing.