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Filed 7/26/23 P. v. Parks CA3 Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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) (Prop osition 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 felon y to a

misdemeanor.

Defendant sought appl ication of Prop osition 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

, C0819 28 ) [nonpub. opn.]. )

I n October 2019, defendant filed a nother Prop osition 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 defenda nt: (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 independen t 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 co urt 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 aft er the transfer. Accordingly, we consider defendant’s

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

Cal.5th at p. 232.)3 DISPOS I TION

The appeal is dismissed.

/s/
Duarte, J.

We concur:

/s/ Hull, Acting P.J.

/s/ Mesiwala, J.