Filed 6/1/23 P. v. Tyler 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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.

GEORGE TYLER,

Defendant and Appellant.

F084393

(Kern Super. Ct. No. BF116022A)

OPINION

THE COURT*

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Chad A. Louie, 

Judge.

Brad Kaiserman, 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., Levy, J. and Poochigian, J.
2.

In 2009, appellant and defendant George Tyler (appellant) was convicted after a 

jury trial of count 1, second degree murder, and count 2, assault of a child resulting in 

death while having care and/or custody of the child. He was sentenced to an aggregate 

term of 25 years to life. In 2010, this court remanded for correction of the abstract of 

judgment and otherwise affirmed.1

In 2020, the superior court denied appellant’s petition for resentencing that had 

been filed pursuant to Penal Code former section 1170.95.2 In 2021, this court affirmed 

the trial court’s order after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to 

People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and addressing issues raised by appellant.

In 2022, appellant filed another petition for resentencing. The superior court 

appointed counsel, conducted a hearing, and denied the petition.

In this appeal from the denial of his second petition, appellant’s counsel filed a 

brief with this court pursuant to Wende 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.3

On March 9, 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 

1 This court granted appellant’s request to take judicial notice of the records and 

nonpublished opinions in his prior appeals in People v. Tyler (Oct. 27, 2010, F058478) 

and People v. Tyler (July 16, 2021, F081652).

2 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; 

Stats. 2022, ch. 58 (Assem. Bill. 200), § 10, eff. June 30, 2022.) As such, we refer to the 

subject statute by its current number throughout this opinion.

3 Appellant’s notice of appeal, prepared in pro. per., was signed on May 18, 2022, 

and filed on May 23, 2022. On January 12, 2023, this court granted appellant’s motion 

for constructive filing of a timely notice of appeal.
3.

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.

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.