1

Filed 3/20/24 P. v. Vanhook CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

(San Joaquin)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

RAESEAN VANHOOK,

Defendant and Appellant.

C097552

(Super. Ct. Nos. 

STKCRFE20150006194 & 

SF131278A)

Defendant Raesean Vanhook appeals from an order denying a petition for 

resentencing under Penal Code former section 1170.95 (now § 1172.6).1 Appointed 

counsel for defendant asks this court to independently review the record pursuant to 

People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 to determine whether there any arguable issues on 

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. Effective June 30, 2022, 

section 1170.95 was renumbered section 1172.6 without change in the text. (See Stats. 

2022, ch. 58, § 10.) We use the current section number in this opinion.
2

appeal. We have exercised our discretion to conduct such a review and affirm the trial 

court’s order. (See, e.g., People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 231-232.)

BACKGROUND

In 2014, defendant fired a shotgun in a struggle with one of three men defendant 

and his accomplices surprised when they snuck into a garage through a partially opened 

garage door. A jury convicted defendant of attempted murder (§§ 664, 187) and other 

charges not relevant to this appeal, and also found multiple firearm enhancements true. 

The trial court found true a prior strike and two enhancements. (§ 667, subd. (b).) The 

court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of 43 years in prison. (Ibid.) We 

affirmed. (People v. Vanhook (Aug. 1, 2018, C080735) [nonpub. opn.].) In a separate 

appeal, we modified the judgment to find that defendant suffered only one prior serious 

felony enhancement (§ 667, subd. (a)). (People v. Vanhook (Nov. 17, 2021, C090019) 

[nonpub. opn.].)

In April 2022, defendant filed a form petition for resentencing under section 

1172.6. Defendant alleged that he was prosecuted and convicted of attempted murder 

under the natural and probable consequences doctrine. The trial court appointed the 

public defender to represent defendant. The People filed a response arguing that the jury 

found defendant guilty as the direct perpetrator who specifically intended to kill the 

person he shot at. Defendant filed a reply arguing that he had established a prima facie 

case for relief since the charging document allowed the prosecution to proceed under the 

natural and probable consequences doctrine. 

The trial court conducted a hearing on defendant’s prima facie eligibility for relief 

under section 1172.6. At the hearing, the trial court noted that it had reviewed the jury 

instructions and the verdicts. After argument by counsel for the parties, the court denied 

the petition. In ruling, the court explained that “we have an adequate record here . . . that 

shows no jury instructions were given on a natural and probable consequences theory or 

aiding and abetting. And the defendant was prosecuted under a specific intent to kill. 
3

And there’s undisputed facts that he was the shooter. [¶] So the [c]ourt finds that the 

defendant has failed to make a prima facie showing, and he is not entitled to resentencing 

under Penal Code Section 1172.6.” 

Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. 

DISCUSSION

Defendant’s appointed counsel asks this court to independently review the record 

to determine whether any arguable issues on appeal existed. (People v. Wende, supra, 

25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel advised defendant of his right to file a supplemental brief within 

30 days from date of the filing of the opening brief. That time has elapsed without 

defendant filing a supplemental brief.

Our Supreme Court held in Wende that “Courts of Appeal must conduct a review 

of the entire record whenever appointed counsel submits a brief on direct appeal which 

raises no specific issues or describes the appeal as frivolous.” (People v. Delgadillo, 

supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 221.) The Wende procedure applies “to the first appeal as of right 

and is compelled by the constitutional right to counsel under the Fourteenth Amendment 

of the United States Constitution.” (Ibid.)

In Delgadillo, the Supreme Court considered whether Wende review is

constitutionally required when a trial court denies a petition for postconviction relief 

under section 1172.6, and it concluded Wende review is not required. (People v. 

Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 221-222.) Nevertheless, the Supreme Court 

exercised its discretion to conduct an independent review of the record, because the 

defendant had not been notified that his appeal might be dismissed as abandoned if he did 

not file a supplemental brief. (Id. at pp. 222, 233.)

Here, defendant was not notified that his appeal might be dismissed as abandoned

if he did not file a supplemental brief. Accordingly, we exercise our discretion to 

conduct an independent review of the record. Having undertaken an examination of the 

entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable 
4

to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The order denying defendant’s section 1172.6 petition is affirmed.

 /s/

MESIWALA, J.

We concur:

 /s/

MAURO, Acting P. J.

 /s/

BOULWARE EURIE, J.