Filed 8/28/26 P. v. Willingham-Kennedy CA2/8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION EIGHT
THE PEOPLE, B344200
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. BA490638)
v.
TYONNA S. WILLINGHAM-
KENNEDY,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County. Alison S. Matsumoto, Judge. Affirmed with
directions.
Stanley Dale Radtke, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_______________
Defendant and appellant Tyonna Willingham-Kennedy was
charged with one count of murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a);1
count 1) and one count of kidnapping (§ 209; count 2). It was
alleged the murder was committed during the commission of a
robbery within the meaning of section 190.2, subdivision (a)(17).
Codefendant Donald Wayne Bell, who is not a party to this
appeal, was also charged with the murder and was alleged to be
the shooter.
At a pretrial hearing on June 12, 2023, before Judge
Michael D. Abzug, defendant was present with privately retained
counsel, Victor Sherman. The court was informed that a
disposition had been reached, but that while the plea could be
entered, sentencing would proceed at a later date. The court
granted the prosecutor’s motion to amend the information to add
a count for manslaughter (§ 192, subd. (a); count 3), and a
firearm-use enhancement under section 12022.5.
During the plea colloquy, defendant confirmed she
understood she was facing a special-circumstance first degree
murder charge, plus a kidnapping for robbery charge with
enhancements, and a maximum exposure of life without parole,
plus additional determinate terms. Defendant also confirmed she
was afforded sufficient time to speak with her attorney. She said
she understood the prosecution’s offer to be a total prison
sentence of 14 years, consisting of an 11-year high term for
manslaughter, plus a three-year low term on the enhancement.
After defendant was advised of her rights, the court asked
her if she was “fully satisfied” with the information given by her
1 All further undesignated statutory citations are to the
Penal Code.
2
attorney, and defendant said “yes.” The court asked if she needed
any more time to talk with her attorney confidentially before
proceeding. Defendant responded, “no sir.”
The court found defendant had freely and knowingly
waived her constitutional rights and was agreeing to change her
plea with a full understanding of the nature and the
consequences of doing so. Counsel joined in the waivers and
stipulated to a factual basis for the plea based on the police
reports, the preliminary hearing transcripts, the probation report
and all other discovery contained therein. The court accepted
defendant’s waivers, plea of no contest to the manslaughter
count, and admission of the firearm allegation. The court
accepted defendant’s waiver under People v. Arbuckle (1978)
22 Cal.3d 749 and set sentencing on the negotiated disposition for
July 11, 2023.
The sentencing hearing was subsequently continued
multiple times, during which time defendant filed a motion to
withdraw her plea under section 1018.
Defendant’s motion to withdraw was heard on January 7,
2025, before Judge Alison S. Matsumoto. We note for the record
that the reporter’s transcript contains a typographical error on
the first page of the hearing, showing the year as 2024, instead of
2025. Kieran Brown, a Bar Panel attorney, was appointed to
represent defendant as her former counsel, Victor Sherman,
intended to testify in support of the motion. Both Sherman and
defendant testified. The court denied defendant’s motion to
withdraw her plea, finding she had not shown by clear and
convincing evidence there was good cause for withdrawal.
Sentencing then proceeded. After reviewing the negotiated
disposition, the court asked the parties about whether there had
3
been an admission of aggravating factors. The parties stipulated
there had not. The court therefore concluded a high term of
11 years on the manslaughter count as originally agreed was not
proper, and imposed a six-year middle term. The court imposed a
consecutive three-year low term on the firearm enhancement
under section 12022.5, subdivision (a). The court awarded
presentence custody credits of 1787 days (1554 actual, 233
conduct). The remaining counts and special allegations were
dismissed.
The court denied defendant’s request for a certificate of
probable cause.
This appeal followed.
While this appeal was pending, the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation notified the trial court there was
an error in the abstract of judgment with the firearm
enhancement identified as a finding under section 12022.53,
subdivision (d). A corrected abstract of judgment showing a
firearm enhancement under section 12022.5, subdivision (a) was
filed on April 4, 2025.
We appointed appellate counsel to represent defendant.
Defendant’s appointed counsel filed a brief under People v. Wende
(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) in which no issues were raised.
The Wende brief included a declaration from counsel in which he
explains that he advised defendant he would be filing a Wende
brief, forwarded the brief and the record to defendant, advised
her of her right to file a supplemental brief and her right to
discharge him as her attorney. Counsel also said he remains
available to brief, upon request, any issues we may have
following our independent review of the case.
Defendant did not file a supplemental brief.
4
On May 30, 2025, we denied defendant’s petition for writ of
habeas corpus. (In re Willingham-Kennedy, pet. den. May 30,
2025, B345298.)
On April 16, 2026, we denied defendant’s petition for a writ
of mandate compelling issuance of a certificate of probable cause.
(Willingham-Kennedy v. Superior Court, pet. den. Apr. 16, 2026,
B349087.) The Supreme Court denied review on May 27, 2026.
(Willingham-Kennedy v. Superior Court (B349087) review den.
May 27, 2026, S296348).
In light of the denial of a certificate of probable cause, our
review is limited to any denial of a motion to suppress, which was
not at issue here, or postplea matters not affecting the validity of
the plea. (Cal. Rule of Court, rule 8.304(b).)
We have examined the record of proceedings submitted to
this court, including the augmented records, and are satisfied
that appointed counsel fully complied with his responsibilities.
(People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d
436.) We find no arguable appellate issues.
However, our review of the record indicates that the
sentencing minute order from January 7, 2025 contains the same
error contained in the original abstract of judgment, i.e., the
statute for the firearm enhancement is cited as section 12022.53,
subdivision (d), instead of section 12022.5, subdivision (a). While
the abstract of judgment was subsequently corrected, there is
nothing to indicate in the record that the sentencing minute
order was also corrected. On remand, the trial court is therefore
instructed to correct the sentencing minute order nunc pro tunc.
5
DISPOSITION
The judgment of conviction is affirmed. On remand, the
superior court is directed to correct the January 7, 2025
sentencing order nunc pro tunc to reflect the correct statutory
citation for the firearm enhancement, which is Penal Code
section 12022.5, subdivision (a).
VIRAMONTES, J.
WE CONCUR:
STRATTON, P. J.
WILEY, J.
6