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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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, along 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 manslaughter.

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 for 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 changes. (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 communication 

from appellant, we consider his appeal abandoned and order dismissal. (Delgadillo, 

supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.)

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.