Court Opinion

ID: 9390013
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-26 18:03:02.972012+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:31.083811
License: Public Domain

Filed 4/26/23 P. v. White CA5

                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                     FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

 THE PEOPLE,
                                                                                             F085029
             Plaintiff and Respondent,
                                                                                     (Merced Super. Ct.
                    v.                                                               No. 15CR-00084C)

 WILLIAM ALLEN WHITE,
                                                                                          OPINION
             Defendant and Appellant.

                                                   THE COURT*
         APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Merced County. Ronald W.
Hansen, Judge. (Retired Judge of the Merced Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice
pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.)
         Christine Vento, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
         Office of the Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
                                                        -ooOoo-

         *   Before Hill, P. J., Detjen, J. and Smith, J.
          In 2017, appellant and defendant William White (appellant) was convicted of first
degree murder, first degree burglary, and two counts of home invasion robbery in concert
with firearm enhancements. He was sentenced to an aggregate third strike term of
137 years to life plus a determinate term of 96 years. In his direct appeal, this court
corrected his sentence, remanded for the trial court to determine whether to resentence on
certain enhancements, and otherwise affirmed his convictions.1 On remand, the trial
court declined to resentence on the enhancements.
          In 2022, appellant filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code
section 1172.6.2 The trial court found appellant’s petition stated a prima facie case,
issued an order to show cause, conducted an evidentiary hearing, and denied relief on the
merits.
          On appeal, appellant’s counsel filed a brief with this court pursuant to People v.
Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, which summarized the facts and procedural history with
citations to the record, raised no issues, and asked this court to independently review the
record.
          On January 20, 2023, this court sent an order to appellant stating his appellate
counsel had filed a brief under Wende that indicated no arguable issues had been
identified for appeal; previously, when an appellant filed an appeal from the denial of a
section 1172.6 petition, and counsel filed a Wende brief, this court performed an
independent review of the record to determine whether any error occurred; the California

          On January 11, 2023, this court granted appellant’s request to take judicial notice
          1
of the record and nonpublished opinion in People v. White (Nov. 17, 2020) F076682.
(Evid. Code, § 459, subds. (a), (c); § 452, subd. (d)(1).)
        2 All further statutory citations are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
Appellant filed his petition under former section 1170.95, which was amended effective
January 1, 2022, and then renumbered as section 1172.6 without further substantive
changes on June 30, 2022. (People v. Saibu (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 709, 714; Stats. 2022,
ch. 58 (Assem. Bill. 200), § 10, eff. June 30, 2022.) As such, we refer to the subject
statute by its current number throughout this opinion.

                                                2.
Supreme Court determined in People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo)
that independent Wende review is not required for appeals from the denial of
section 1172.6 petitions; in accordance with the procedures set forth in Delgadillo,
appellant had 30 days in which to file a supplemental brief or letter raising any arguable
issues he wanted this court to consider; and if we did not receive a letter or brief within
that 30-day period, this court may dismiss the appeal as abandoned.
       Since more than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication
from appellant, we consider his appeal abandoned and order dismissal. (Delgadillo,
supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.)
                                      DISPOSITION
       The appeal is dismissed.

                                              3.