Court Opinion

ID: 9391954
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-03 19:03:52.802967+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:05.766462
License: Public Domain

Filed 5/3/23 P. v. Cage 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                                     (Sacramento)
                                                            ----

    THE PEOPLE,                                                                                C097197

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                      (Super. Ct. No. 07F02966)

           v.

    JIM CAGE,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Defendant Jim Cage appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for resentencing
under Penal Code section 1172.6.1 Appellate counsel filed a brief raising no arguable
issues under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, and requesting we exercise our
discretion to review the entire record for arguable issues on appeal.

1 Defendant petitioned for resentencing under former section 1170.95. Effective
June 30, 2022, the Legislature renumbered former section 1170.95 as section 1172.6
without substantive changes. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.)

                                                             1
       On December 31, 2022, appellate counsel wrote defendant explaining she would
be filing a Delgadillo brief, and if defendant failed to file a propria persona supplemental
brief, his appeal would likely be dismissed as abandoned. On February 3, 2023, this
court sent a letter notifying defendant: (1) his counsel filed an appellate brief stating her
review of the record did not identify any arguable issues; (2) as a case arising from an
order denying postconviction relief, defendant was not constitutionally entitled to counsel
or to an independent review of the record; and (3) in accordance with the procedures set
forth in Delgadillo, defendant had 30 days to file a supplemental brief or letter raising
any argument he wanted this court to consider. In addition, we notified defendant if this
court did not receive a letter or brief within that 30-day period, the court may dismiss his
appeal as abandoned. More than 30 days have elapsed and we have received no
communication from defendant.
       We consider defendant’s appeal abandoned and order the appeal dismissed.
(People v. Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.)

                                              2
                                    DISPOSITION
      The appeal is dismissed.

                                                   /s/
                                               HORST, J.

We concur:

    /s/
RENNER, Acting P.J.

    /s/
BOULWARE EURIE, J.

 Judge of the Placer County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to
article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

                                           3