Court Opinion

ID: 9401377
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-12 21:04:53.422162+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:52.403459
License: Public Domain

Filed 6/12/23 P. v. Alvarez 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                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,
                                                                                             F085369
           Plaintiff and Respondent,
                                                                           (Kern Super. Ct. No. BF151478A)
                    v.

 JAMES ALVAREZ,                                                                           OPINION
           Defendant and Appellant.

                                                   THE COURT *
         APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Colette M.
Humphrey, Judge.
         Sharon G. Wrubel, 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., Levy, J. and Franson, J.
       In 2014, appellant and defendant James Alvarez (appellant) was convicted after a
jury trial of attempted voluntary manslaughter and other offenses and sentenced to an
aggregate term of 16 years in prison. In 2016, this court affirmed the judgment on direct
appeal. (People v. Alvarez (May 11, 2016, F069040) [nonpub. opn.].)
       In 2022, appellant filed a petition for resentencing of his conviction for attempted
voluntary manslaughter pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.6. 1 The People filed
opposition and requested judicial notice of this court’s opinion on direct appeal and the
trial record. The superior court appointed counsel, conducted a hearing, and granted the
prosecution’s motion for judicial notice, but stated it could not rely on the facts stated
therein to determine whether there was a prima facie case. 2 The court denied appellant’s
petition, finding he failed to state a prima facie case.
       On appeal, appellant’s counsel filed a brief with this court pursuant to People v.
Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216
(Delgadillo), 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 April 12, 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
Supreme Court determined in Delgadillo that independent Wende review is not required

       1 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, effective June 30, 2022, without
further substantive changes. (People v. Saibu (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 709, 715, fn. 3.) As
such, we refer to the subject statute by its current number throughout this opinion.
       2 This court granted appellate counsel’s motion to take judicial notice of the record
and opinion from his direct appeal.

                                               2.
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.