Court Opinion

ID: 9556028
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-15 21:03:42.649904+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:47:14.547627
License: Public Domain

Filed 8/15/23 P. v. Thao 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                                                                   C097525

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                      (Super. Ct. No. 95F01142)

           v.

 ENG THAO,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Defendant Eng Thao appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for 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];
undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.) Counsel filed a brief raising no
arguable issues under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 and requesting we
exercise our discretion to review the entire record for arguable issues on appeal.
         On May 5, 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

                                                             1
postconviction relief, defendant was not entitled to counsel or to 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 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.
(People v. Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.)

                                       DISPOSITION
       The appeal is dismissed.

                                                  HULL, J.

We concur:

EARL, P. J.

RENNER, J.

                                              2