Court Opinion

ID: 9865394
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 17:05:02.336435+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:35:41.364959
License: Public Domain

Filed 9/25/23 P. v. Coleman 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                                                                C092416

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                     (Super. Ct. No. CR118468)

           v.

    ROOSEVELT JERMAINE COLEMAN III,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Defendant Roosevelt Jermaine Coleman III appeals the trial court’s denial of his
petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6.1 Appointed counsel filed an
opening brief that asked this court to review the record and determine whether any

1      Defendant filed his petition under former section 1170.95. Senate Bill No. 775
(2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) amended section 1170.95 effective January 1, 2022. (Stats. 2021,
ch. 551). Effective June 30, 2022, the Legislature renumbered section 1170.95 to section
1172.6 without substantive change. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) This opinion refers to
section 1172.6.

                                                             1
arguable issues exist on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We dismissed
the appeal, and our Supreme Court transferred the case back to us with directions to
vacate our prior decision and reconsider the matter in light of People v. Delgadillo (2022)
14 Cal.5th 216.
       After we vacated our decision, we notified defendant on June 30, 2023, that:
(1) counsel had filed a brief stating that counsel had found no arguable issues; (2) as a
case from an order denying postconviction relief, defendant was not entitled to counsel or
to an independent review of the record; and (3) defendant had 30 days to file a
supplemental brief or letter; and (4) if we did not receive a brief or letter within the 30
days, we may dismiss the appeal as abandoned. More than 30 days have elapsed and we
did not receive timely communication from defendant.2

2      Defendant submitted a supplemental brief after the 30-day deadline had expired.
This court did not grant defendant leave to file the late supplemental brief because
defendant’s proposed supplemental brief did not raise any claims but rather asked the
court to conduct a Wende review to which he was not entitled under Delgadillo and he
never sought an extension of time to file his supplemental brief.

                                              2
                                    DISPOSITION
      The appeal is dismissed.

                                                 /s/
                                                MESIWALA, J.

We concur:

 /s/
EARL, P. J.

 /s/
KEITHLEY, J.*

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

                                            3