1

Filed 7/26/23 P. v. Parks CA3

Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CHARLES ANDRE PARKS,

Defendant and Appellant.

C092561

(Super. Ct. No. 95F08570)

OPINION ON TRANSFER

This appeal comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.

In 1997, a jury found defendant Charles Andre Parks guilty of first degree 

burglary (Pen. Code, § 459)1 and attempted burglary (§§ 664/459).

In 2014, California voters enacted Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and 

Schools Act (Gen. Elec. (Nov. 4, 2014) (Proposition 47), which created a resentencing 

provision codified at section 1170.18 that permits a person serving a sentence for certain 

1

 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 
2

designated felonies to petition for recall of the sentence to reduce a felony to a 

misdemeanor. 

Defendant sought application of Proposition 47 to his attempted burglary 

conviction, but the trial court denied relief because defendant’s attempted burglary 

conviction is not eligible for reduction to a misdemeanor. This court affirmed the order. 

(People v. Parks (Feb. 27, 2017, C081928) [nonpub. opn.].)

In October 2019, defendant filed another Proposition 47 petition, which the trial 

court denied. Defendant appealed and defendant’s appellate counsel requested that this 

court review the record to determine whether there were any arguable issues on appeal. 

We determined defendant was not entitled to a Wende review and that his appeal had 

been abandoned by his failure to raise any claim of error. Accordingly, we dismissed the 

appeal. 

Defendant petitioned our Supreme Court for review; that court directed us to 

vacate our prior decision and reconsider the matter in light of People v. Delgadillo (2022) 

14 Cal.5th 216. 

On May 31, 2023, this court sent a letter notifying defendant: (1) his counsel filed 

an appellate brief stating a review of the record did not identify any arguable issues; 

(2) as a case arising from an order denying postconviction relief, defendant was not 

constitutionally entitled to counsel or to an independent review of the record; and (3) in 

accordance with the procedures set forth in Delgadillo, defendant had 30 days to file a 

supplemental brief or letter raising any argument he wanted this court to consider. In 

addition, we advised defendant that if the court did not receive a letter brief within that 

period, “the court may dismiss the appeal as abandoned.” Neither appellate counsel nor 

defendant filed any briefing after the transfer. Accordingly, we consider defendant’s 

appeal abandoned and order the appeal dismissed. (People v. Delgadillo, supra, 14 

Cal.5th at p. 232.)
3

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

 /s/

Duarte, J.

We concur:

 /s/

Hull, Acting P.J.

 /s/

Mesiwala, J.