Filed 11/18/20 P. v. Delgadillo CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 FOUR

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JOSE DELGADILLO,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B304441

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. BA436900)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles 

County, Katherine Mader, Judge. Dismissed.

Nancy J. King, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 

Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
2

Defendant Jose Delgadillo appeals from the trial court’s denial of 

his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95. The 

petition was denied following a hearing and briefing by the parties. The 

court found that there were no “grounds whatsoever for re-sentencing of 

[defendant]. . . . [D]efendant was the actual and only killer.” (See 

People v. Delgadillo (July 17, 2018, B281230) [nonpub. opn.] [defendant 

convicted of second degree murder after driving his car under the 

influence of alcohol and colliding into a car, killing one of the 

passengers]; People v. Roldan (2020) __ Cal.App.5th __, __ [2020 WL 

6375578] [petitioners convicted of second degree murder under actual 

implied malice are not entitled to relief as a matter of law under Penal 

Code section 1170.95].)

Defendant’s appointed counsel found no arguable issues and filed 

a brief under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), asking this 

court to independently review the record. On July 6, 2020, we directed 

counsel to send the record and a copy of the opening brief to defendant. 

Both his counsel and this court informed defendant that counsel had 

been unable to find any arguable issues. Defendant was invited to 

submit a supplemental brief or letter within 30 days raising any 

contentions he wished this court to consider. He did not do so.

As recently explained in People v. Cole (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 1023 

(review granted, Oct. 14, 2020, No. S264278) (Cole), the procedures set 

forth in Wende are not constitutionally compelled if a criminal 

defendant’s appeal is not his or her initial appeal of right. (Id. at 

p. 1038.) We adopt the analysis in Cole, and apply the procedures 
3

described therein for appeals from the denial of postconviction relief.

Accordingly, if a defendant’s counsel files a brief indicating she has been 

unable to identify any arguable appellate issues and, after notice, the 

defendant does not exercise his or her right to file a supplemental brief, 

we presume the order appealed from is correct and dismiss the appeal 

as abandoned. (Id. at pp. 1038–1040.) Appellate counsel complied with 

her obligations, and defendant was advised of his right to file a 

supplemental brief. Because he did not do so, we dismiss the appeal as 

abandoned in accordance with the procedures articulated in Cole.

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

WILLHITE, Acting P. J.

We concur:

COLLINS, J.

CURREY J.