Court Opinion

ID: 9556261
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-16 18:04:09.884826+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:42:07.676057
License: Public Domain

Filed 8/16/23 P. v. Panyanouvong 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                                  C097435

           v.                                                                      (Super. Ct. No. 15F00271)

 KHOT PANYANOUVONG,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         In 2016, a jury found defendant Khot Panyanouvong guilty of first degree murder.
The trial court sentenced him to 55 years to life in prison. This court affirmed the
judgment in 2020. (People v. Panyanouvong (May 12, 2020, C083303) [nonpub. opn.].)
         In September 2022, defendant filed a petition for resentencing under what is now
Penal Code section 1172.6 (then section 1170.95). The trial court appointed counsel,
reviewed the record, and determined that defendant was the sole perpetrator and that his
conviction was not based on either the natural and probable consequences doctrine or the
felony-murder rule. It denied the petition.
         Defendant’s counsel filed a brief in this court pursuant to People v. Delgadillo
(2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo), asking us to exercise our discretion to review the
entire record for arguable issues on appeal. Counsel notified defendant that he could file
a supplemental brief or letter within 30 days of the filing of his opening brief. Counsel

                                                             1
also notified defendant that this court may treat the appeal as abandoned and dismiss the
appeal if he did not timely file a supplemental brief.
       On May 3, 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 an independent 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 that if we did not receive a letter
or brief within that 30-day period, we may dismiss the appeal as abandoned. More than
30 days have elapsed and defendant has not filed a supplemental brief.
       We consider defendant’s appeal abandoned and will order the appeal dismissed.
(Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.)
                                       DISPOSITION
       The appeal is dismissed.

                                                     /S/
                                                  MAURO, J.

We concur:

    /S/
ROBIE, Acting P. J.

    /S/
BOULWARE EURIE, J.

                                              2