Filed 6/12/23 P. v. Alaniz CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.
DANIEL ALANIZ, Defendant and Appellant. F085633 (Tulare Super. Ct. No. VCF343538)



### OPINION

THE COURT * APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Nathan G. Leedy, Judge. Elizabeth Campbell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

- ooOoo

-

* Before Hill, P. J., Peña, J. and De Santos, J.2

.

In 2016, appellant and defendant Daniel Alaniz (appellant) was initially charged with five counts of attempted murder, alo ng with other offenses. Appellant pleaded no contest to an amended charge of assault with a semiautomatic rifle and admitted gang and firearm enhancements. In 2017, he was sentenced to the stipulated term of 20 years. In 2022, appellant filed a petition for resentencing of his conviction pursuant to
Penal Code section 1172.6. 1 The superior court filed an order that summarily denied the petition and held appellant was ineligible for relief because he was not convicted of murder, attempted murder, or mans laughter. On appeal, appellant’s counsel filed a brief with this court pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 ( Delgadillo ), which summarized the facts and procedural history with citations to the record, raised no issues, and asked this court to independently review the record. On April 10, 2023, this court sent an order to appellant stating his appellate
counsel had filed a brief under Wende that indicated no arguable issues had been
identified fo r appeal; previously, when an appellant filed an appeal from the denial of a
section 1172.6 petition, and counsel filed a Wende brief, this court performed an independent review of the record to determine whether any error occurred; the California Supreme Court determined in Delgadillo that independent Wende review is not required for appeals from the denial of section 1172.6 petitions; in accordance with the procedures
set forth in Delgadillo , appellant had 30 days in which to file a supplemental brief or letter raising any arguable issues he wanted this court to consider; and if we did not
receive a letter or brief within that 30

- day period, this court may dismiss the appeal as
abandoned.

1 All further statutory citations are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. Appellant filed his petition under former section 1170.95, which was amended effective January 1, 2022, and then renumbered as section 1172.6 , effective June 30, 2022, without further substantive change s

. ( People v. Saibu (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 709, 715, fn. 3 .) As such, we refer to the subject statute by its current number throughout this opinion.3

.

Since more than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no commun ication from appellant, we consider his appeal abandoned and order dismissal. ( Delgadillo,

supra , 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.) DISPOSITION The appeal is dismissed.