People v. Joiner CA4/1 ( 2023 )

Filed 5/15/23 P. v. Joiner 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, D081169
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN174120)
WARDELL NELSON JOINER,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
James E. Simmons, Jr., Judge. Affirmed.
Wardell Nelson Joiner, in pro. per.; and Siri Shetty, under appointment
by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In 2005, a jury convicted Wardell Nelson Joiner of first degree murder
(Pen. Code,1 § 187, subd. (a)) and found true a special circumstance that the
murder also involved torture (§ 190.2(a)(18)). Joiner was sentenced to life
without the possibility of parole.
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
Joiner appealed and this court affirmed the conviction in an unpublished
opinion. (People v. Joiner (Dec. 12, 2006, D047296).)
In 2022, Joiner filed a petition for resentencing under section 1170.95
(now renumbered section 1172.6). The court appointed counsel, received
briefing, and held a hearing. After reviewing the record of conviction and
hearing the arguments of counsel, the court found Joiner had not stated a
prima facie case for relief under the statute and denied the petition without
issuing an order to show cause.
Joiner filed a timely notice of appeal.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo
(2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo) indicating counsel has not been able to
identify any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel
asks the court to exercise its discretion to review the record for error as we
would do under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Joiner has
filed his own brief challenging the trial court’s decision to deny his petition
for resentencing under section 1172.6. We will address Joiner’s submission
later in this opinion.
When the trial court denied Joiner’s petition it found Joiner was
ineligible for relief as a matter of law. The court said:
“Based on the record of conviction, petitioner was the
actual killer and petitioner was not convicted under any
theory or liability affected by Senate Bill 1437. [¶] The
court finds that petitioner has failed to make a prima facie
showing and finds that he is ineligible for relief as a matter of law
pursuant to Penal Code Section 1172.6.”
2
DISCUSSION2
As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Delgadillo and asks the court to independently review the record for error.
We will exercise our discretion and independently review the record for error
and consider Joiner’s brief.
After reviewing the briefs and the record of conviction, the trial court
found Joiner was the sole perpetrator of the offense. In short, Joiner was the
actual killer. He was not prosecuted as an aider and abettor. The jury was
not instructed on theories of liability based on the felony murder rule or the
natural and probable consequences doctrine.
In his brief, Joiner does not actually address the basis for relief under
section 1172.6. He does not deny he was the sole perpetrator and the actual
killer. Instead, Joiner complains about the jury instructions and argues the
jury could have found an absence of malice in this case.
Petitions for resentencing under this statute are for cases where a
defendant was not the killer but was held vicariously liable on one of several
theories of liability identified in the statute. The statute is not simply
another appellate opportunity to challenge the original judgment. (See
People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952.)
Joiner’s brief does not raise any arguably meritorious issues for
reversal on appeal.
Consistent with counsel’s request for Wende review, and in compliance
with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified
a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this
2 The facts of the offense are summarized in our prior opinion. We will
not repeat them here.
3
appeal: Whether the trial court prejudicially erred in finding Joiner was not
eligible for relief under the statute.
We have reviewed the entire record consistent with the requirements of
Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal
on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Joiner on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The order denying Joiner’s petition for resentencing under section
1172.6 is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
O’ROURKE, J.
CASTILLO, J.
4