Court Opinion

ID: 9401725
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-13 20:03:24.779993+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:54.810814
License: Public Domain

Filed 6/13/23 P. Walden 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                                                                   C093920

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                      (Super. Ct. No. 12F04876)

           v.                                                                     OPINION ON TRANSFER

 PAUL WALDEN,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         This appeal arises from the trial court’s denial of defendant Paul Walden’s petition
for resentencing under former Penal Code section 1172.6. (Undesignated statutory
references are to the Penal Code.) Defendant filed his original petition under former
section 1170.95, however, the Legislature amended section 1170.95 effective January 1,
2022 and subsequently renumbered section 1170.95 to section 1172.6, without
substantive change. (Stats. 2021, ch. 551; Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) For clarity, we refer
to the statute as section 1172.6.
         In his original appeal, we appointed counsel to represent defendant and his
appointed counsel asked this court for an independent review of the record to determine
whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v.Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.)
Defendant was informed of his right to file a supplemental brief but did not file one and
we dismissed that appeal.

                                                             1
       The Supreme Court granted defendant’s petition for review and transferred this
case back to us with directions to vacate our prior decision and reconsider this case in
light of People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). We vacated our
decision.
       On April 18, 2023, we notified defendant: 1) counsel had filed a brief indicating
no arguable issues had been identified by counsel; 2) as a case arising from an order
denying postconviction relief, defendant was not entitled to counsel or to an ind ependent
review of the record; and 3) in accordance with the procedures set forth in Delgadillo,
defendant had 30 days in which to file a supplemental brief or letter raising any argument
he wanted this court to consider. In addition, we notified defendant if we did not receive
a letter or brief within that 30-day period, the court may dismiss the 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.
(Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.)

                                       DISPOSITION
       The appeal is dismissed.

                                                                              ,
                                                 HULL, Acting P. J.

We concur:

                            ,
MAURO, J.

                            ,
RENNER, J.

                                             2