Court Opinion

ID: 9394219
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-12 18:03:27.731456+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:58.012965
License: Public Domain

Filed 5/12/23 P. v. Burnett CA3
Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court
                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                                                                   C095101

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                      (Super. Ct. No. 96F05901)

           v.                                                                     OPINION ON TRANSFER

 CARLOS BURNETT,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         This appeal comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436
(Wende).
         Defendant Carlos Burnett was found guilty of first degree murder and attempted
murder after he and a codefendant shot and killed the victim in a gang-related incident.
(People v. Burnett (June 30, 1998, C026520) [nonpub. opn.].) The jury also found true
allegations that defendant personally used a firearm in the commission of both crimes and
intentionally killed the victim by discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle. (Ibid.) We
affirmed the convictions in an unpublished decision in 1998. (Ibid.)

                                                             1
       After the passage of Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2018,
ch. 1015), defendant sought resentencing under former Penal Code section 1170.95.
(Former section 1170.95 has since been renumbered section 1172.6, with no change in
text [see stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10]; further undesignated statutory references are to the
Penal Code.) The trial court appointed counsel and received briefing from the parties.
The trial court reviewed the jury instructions given at defendant’s trial, observed that the
jury had not been instructed on any theory of felony murder or the natural and probable
consequences doctrine, and denied the petition accordingly.
       Defendant appealed the trial court’s order denying his petition for resentencing.
       Appointed counsel for defendant asked this court to independently review the
record pursuant to Wende. Defendant failed to file a supplemental brief and we
dismissed the appeal as abandoned. The California Supreme Court granted review of the
case and later transferred the matter back to this court with instructions to vacate the
dismissal and reconsider the case in light of People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216
(Delgadillo). This court sent defendant a letter notifying him of his obligations under
Delgadillo. Defendant has filed a supplemental brief raising three issues. We have
considered defendant’s arguments and will affirm the trial court’s order.

                                        DISCUSSION
       The California Supreme Court has considered whether the Wende process
applies to a trial court’s order denying a petition for postconviction relief under
former section 1170.95 and concluded such procedures are not required. (People v.
Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 221-222.) The Supreme Court laid out
applicable procedures for such cases, saying, where, as here, a defendant has filed a
supplemental brief, “the Court of Appeal is required to evaluate the specific
arguments presented in that brief and to issue a written opinion. The filing of a
supplemental brief or letter does not compel an independent review of the entire

                                              2
record to identify unraised issues.” (Id. at p. 232.)
       Defendant raises three issues related to his original trial, arguing a police
detective lied to him in an interrogation, there was a lack of evidence as to the
firearm used, and one of the witnesses at trial lied. None of these issues are
cognizable in an appeal from an order denying a resentencing petition under former
section 1170.95. (People v. DeHuff (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 428, 438 [former
section 1170.95 “does not permit a petitioner to establish eligibility on the basis of
alleged trial error”].) This court affirmed defendant’s convictions in 1998 and the
judgment is now final. (People v. Burnett (June 30, 1998, C026520) [nonpub.
opn.].) As such, defendant’s arguments do not show the trial court erred in
rejecting his resentencing petition.

                                       DISPOSITION
       The trial court’s order denying the petition is affirmed.

                                                   HULL, J.

We concur:

ROBIE, Acting P. J.

KRAUSE, J.

                                              3