Court Opinion

ID: 9401341
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-12 20:04:53.162432+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:52.211794
License: Public Domain

Filed 6/12/23 P. v. Martinez 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                                                                   C092719

                   Plaintiff and Respondent,                                       (Super. Ct. No. 107515)

         v.

BONIFACIO MARTINEZ,

                   Defendant and Appellant.

                                                             1
       Defendant Bonifacio Martinez appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for
resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6.1 In June 2021, counsel filed a brief
raising no arguable issues under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and asked this
court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal.
We dismissed the appeal as abandoned in October 2021 (People v. Martinez (Oct. 28,
2021, C092719) [nonpub. opn.]) and our Supreme Court granted review in January 2022.
       In December 2022, our Supreme Court held that the Wende procedures, including
the court’s duty to independently review the appellate record, do not apply to an appeal
from the denial of a postconviction relief under the resentencing procedures set forth in
section 1172.6. (People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 226.) In March 2023, our
Supreme Court transferred the matter to us, with directions to vacate our original decision
and reconsider whether to exercise our discretion to conduct an independent review of the
record or provide any other relief in light of Delgadillo.
       On April 6, 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 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.

1  Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. Effective June 30, 2022, the
Legislature renumbered former section 1170.95 to section 1172.6. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58,
§ 10.) There were no substantive changes to the statute. Defendant filed his petition
under former section 1170.95, but we will cite to the current section 1172.6 throughout
this opinion.

                                              2
       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.

                                                       /s/
                                                 Duarte, J.

We concur:

      /s/
Hull, Acting P. J.

     /s/
Renner, J.

                                             3