Court Opinion

ID: 9889333
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-09 17:04:12.605008+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:50:02.018602
License: Public Domain

Filed 10/9/23 P. v. Willis 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                                                                   C097906

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                      (Super. Ct. No. 07F00088)

           v.

 JAMES WILLIS,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Defendant James Willis 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 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 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
       In a letter dated July 21, 2023, appellate counsel wrote defendant, explaining he
would be filing a Delgadillo brief, that defendant may file a supplemental brief or letter
within 30 days of filing the Delgadillo brief, and that if defendant failed to file a
supplemental brief, his appeal would likely be dismissed as abandoned. On July 24,
2023, this court sent a letter notifying defendant: (1) his counsel filed an appellate brief
stating his 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.)
                                       DISPOSITION
       The appeal is dismissed.

                                                    /s/
                                                   MESIWALA, J.

We concur:

 /s/
HULL, Acting P. J.

 /s/
BOULWARE EURIE, J.

                                               2