Filed 6/22/21 P. v. Thompson CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MATHEW ARLIN THOMPSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B309117

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No.

 NA091280)

THE COURT:

In 2013, a jury found defendant and appellant Mathew 

Arlin Thompson guilty of one count of second degree murder 

(Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a); count 1),1 two counts of attempted 

murder (§§ 664, 187, subd. (a); counts 6 & 7), and one count of 

shooting at an inhabited dwelling (§ 246; count 3). (People v. 

Thompson (May 19, 2015, B252528) [nonpub. opn.], p. 2.) The 

jury also found true gang and firearm enhancement allegations. 

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code 

unless otherwise indicated.
2

(Ibid.) The trial court sentenced defendant to a total term of 140 

years to life in state prison and imposed various fines and fees. 

(Id. at p. 14.)

On direct appeal, we remanded the matter for the limited 

purpose of resentencing. We directed the trial court to “strike the 

20-year firearm enhancement on count 1; strike the 15-years-tolife gang enhancements on counts 3, 6 and 7; exercise its 

sentencing discretion on the sentence range for count 3; modify 

the sentences on counts 6 and 7 to indeterminate life sentences; 

and strike the $1,000 assessment and surcharge.” (People v. 

Thompson, supra, B252528, at p. 16.) We affirmed the judgment 

in all other respects. (Ibid.)

On February 4, 2020, defendant, in propria persona, filed a 

petition for resentencing pursuant to section 1170.95. The trial 

court appointed counsel to represent defendant. The People filed 

an opposition to the petition and attached, as exhibits, the 

prosecutor’s closing argument and the jury instructions given. 

Defendant’s counsel did not file a reply.

On November 16, 2020, the trial court held a hearing on 

defendant’s petition for resentencing. At the hearing, defendant 

made a motion pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 

118, which the trial court denied. The trial court then denied 

defendant’s petition on the ground that, although defendant was 

not the actual killer, he was convicted as an aider and abettor 

and not under the natural and probable consequences doctrine or 

a felony murder theory of liability.

Defendant timely appealed from the trial court’s order.

Appointed appellate counsel filed a brief raising no issues and 

asking this court to independently review the entire record on 

appeal for arguable issues, pursuant to the procedures set forth 
3

in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. On April 2, 2021, we 

notified defendant that he had 30 days within which to 

personally submit any grounds of appeal, contentions, or 

argument for us to consider. To date, defendant has not filed a 

supplemental brief.

This appeal is from an order denying postconviction relief 

rather than defendant’s first appeal of right from a criminal 

conviction. Therefore, we are not required to conduct an 

independent review for arguable issues. (People v. Cole (2020) 

52 Cal.App.5th 1023, 1039, review granted Oct. 14, 2020, 

S264278; see also People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496, 

501.)

Because defendant has not filed a supplemental brief

identifying any issue warranting reversal, we dismiss this appeal 

as abandoned. (People v. Cole, supra, 52 Cal.App.5th at 

pp. 1039–1040; People v. Figueras (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 108, 

112–113, review granted May 12, 2021, S267870; People v. Scott

(2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 1127, 1129–1130, review granted Mar. 17, 

2021, S266853; but see People v. Flores (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 

266, 269 [holding “that when an appointed counsel files a Wende

brief in an appeal from a summary denial of a section 1170.95 

petition, a Court of Appeal is not required to independently 

review the entire record, but the court can and should do so in the 

interests of justice”]; People v. Allison (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 449, 

456; People v. Gallo (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 594, 599.)
4

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

____________________________________________________________

LUI, P. J. ASHMANN-GERST, J. CHAVEZ, J.