Filed 6/5/24 P. v. Winn 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

DONALD WINN,

Defendant and Appellant.

 D082903

 (Super. Ct. No. FSB1501224)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Bernardino 

County, Ronald M. Christianson, Judge. (Retired Judge of San Bernardino 

Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. 

Const.) Affirmed. 

Donald Winn, in pro. per.; and Theresa Osterman Stevenson, under 

appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. 
2

In 2016, a jury convicted Donald Winn of conspiracy to possess 

phencyclidine (PCP) (Health and Saf. Code, § 11378.5; Pen. Code,1 § 182, 

subd. (a)(1)). The jury also found true a gang enhancement under 

section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1). The court found true serious felony priors 

(§ 667, subd. (a)) and strike priors under section 667, subdivisions (b)-(i). 

The court denied Winn’s request to dismiss the strike priors and 

imposed a total sentence of 35 years to life in prison. The court stayed the 

term for the gang enhancement. 

Winn appealed and this court affirmed the judgment with modification 

of the fee assessments. (People v. Winn (Sept. 19, 2018, D074045) [nonpub. 

opn.].)

In 2023, Winn filed a nonstatutory “motion for reconsideration” seeking 

dismissal of the gang enhancement. The trial court found the judgment was 

final in 2019 and therefore denied the motion without a hearing. 

Winn filed a timely notice of appeal. 

Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo

(2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). Counsel has not identified any potentially 

meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to exercise 

its discretion to independently review the record in the same fashion as we 

would do in a case controlled by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 

(Wende). We advised Winn of his right to file his own brief on appeal. He has 

filed a short response which does not present any arguable issues for reversal 

on appeal.

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise 

specified.
3

We discussed the facts of the offenses in our original opinion in this 

case. (People v. Winn, supra, D074045.) We will not repeat that discussion 

here.

DISCUSSION

As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Delgadillo brief and 

does not identify any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. 

We have exercised our discretion to independently review the record for error. 

Our review has not discovered any potentially meritorious or arguable issues 

for reversal on appeal. In his submission, Winn has not presented any 

briefing as contemplated by the Delgadillo procedure. Competent counsel 

has represented Winn on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The order denying Winn’s post judgment motion for reconsideration is 

affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

CASTILLO, J.

RUBIN, J.