Court Opinion

ID: 9410834
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-24 18:04:01.455992+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:00.197763
License: Public Domain

Filed 7/24/23 P. v. Figueras 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                                    (San Joaquin)
                                                            ----

    THE PEOPLE,                                                                                C089228

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                        (Super. Ct. Nos.
                                                                                STK-CR-CNV-1998-0016801,
           v.                                                                          SP063761A)

    LUIS JUAN FIGUERAS,                                                           OPINION ON TRANSFER

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Defendant Luis Juan Figueras appeals from an order denying his postjudgment
petition to vacate his murder conviction pursuant to Penal Code1 section 1172.6.2
Counsel was appointed to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief
setting forth the facts of the case and requesting this court to review the record and

1        Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2       The Legislature amended section 1172.6 effective January 1, 2022, under Senate
Bill No. 775 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2021, ch. 551). Further, effective June 30,
2022, the Legislature renumbered former section 1170.95 to current section 1172.6,
without substantive change. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) For clarity and conformity, we
will refer to the statute as section 1172.6 throughout the opinion.

                                                             1
determine whether there were any arguable issues on appeal, in accordance with
People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel advised defendant of his right to file a
supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30
days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. We then dismissed the
appeal as abandoned.
       Counsel filed a petition for rehearing, which we granted. After supplemental
briefing by both parties, we again concluded the appeal had been abandoned, and
dismissed it in a published opinion. (People v. Figueras (C089228) opn. filed
February 22, 2021, review granted May 12, 2021, S267870, vacated & trans. for
reconsideration in light of People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 May 31, 2023.)
We rejected defendant’s contention the Wende procedure applies or should apply to an
appeal from an order denying a postconviction petition seeking relief pursuant to section
1172.6. (Ibid.)
       Our Supreme Court granted defendant’s petition for review and transferred this
case back to us with directions to vacate our prior decision and reconsider this case in
light of Delgadillo. We vacated our decision.
       On June 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.
       We consider defendant’s appeal abandoned and order the appeal dismissed.
(People v. Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.)

                                             2
                                DISPOSITION
     The appeal is dismissed.

                                         /s/
                                         ROBIE, Acting P. J.

We concur:

/s/
DUARTE, J.

/s/
RENNER, J.

                                     3