Filed 6/14/24 P. v. Burney CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D082655 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD238174) TIFFANY NICOLE BURNEY, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Eugenia A. Eyherabide, Judge. Affirmed.

Michael C. Sampson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In 2015, Tiffany Nicole Burney was convicted of first degree murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187, subd. (a)). The jury found true an allegation that Burney personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing death (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). After a second trial, a jury found Burney was sane at the time of

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code. the offense. The court sentenced Burney to a term of 50 years to life in prison.

Following an appeal, this court affirmed the conviction but ultimately remanded the case to the trial court with directions to exercise its discretion under People v. Tirado (2022) 12 Cal.5th 688 to decide whether to strike or modify the firearm enhancement.

On remand, the trial court held a hearing. The court reviewed the factors for and against striking the enhancement. It considered the totality of the evidence regarding Burney’s mental health issues and the circumstances surrounding the offense. The court determined the interests of justice did not justify striking or modifying the term for the use of a firearm.

The court reinstated the 50 years to life sentence.

Burney 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 independently review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Burney the opportunity to file her own brief on appeal, but she has not responded.

DISCUSSION The facts underlying the offense and the use of a firearm have previously been discussed in the earlier appeal. There is no need to repeat that discussion here.

We have independently reviewed the record for error as required by Wende. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.

Competent counsel has represented Burney on this appeal.

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

IRION, J.

KELETY, J.