Court Opinion

ID: 9399578
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-05 19:05:06.681662+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:34.972309
License: Public Domain

Filed 6/5/23 P. v. Brass CA4/2

                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

                                   FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                  DIVISION TWO

 THE PEOPLE,

           Plaintiff and Respondent,                                      E080675

 v.                                                                       (Super.Ct.No. FSB1302919)

 ISAAC LAMONT BRASS, JR.,                                                 OPINION

           Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Ronald M.

Christianson, Judge. (Retired Judge of the San Bernardino Super. Ct. assigned by the

Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Dismissed.

         Christine Vento, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                                                              1
       Defendant and appellant Isaac Lamont Brass, Jr., appeals from the order of the San

Bernardino Superior Court denying his section 1172.6 petition for resentencing. 1

                                    BACKGROUND

       In 2013, a jury convicted defendant of several offenses, including attempted

murder. (§§ 664, 187.) It also found true that he personally used and discharged a

firearm in the commission of the attempt. Defendant appealed and we struck improperly

imposed on-probation enhancements, ordered amendment of the abstract of judgment to

reflect the change, and affirmed the judgment in all other respects. (People v. Brass

(Aug. 7, 2015, E060714) [nonpub. opn.] (Brass I.).)

       In March 2022, defendant filed a section 1172.6 petition for resentencing. The

People opposed the petition and requested judicial notice of our opinion in Brass I, the

jury’s signed verdict forms, as well as the trial court’s files and records in defendant’s

case. Defendant argued his petition established on its face his entitlement to relief and,

therefore, the court should not decide the credibility of his allegations without first

holding an evidentiary hearing.

       At the January 2023 hearing on the petition, the trial court granted the People’s

request for judicial notice and denied defendant’s petition on the ground that its review of

the court record established defendant was prosecuted and convicted on the sole theory

that he was the actual person who attempted to murder the victim and used a firearm in

       1  Section 1170.95 was renumbered as section 1172.6 without change in the text,
effective June 30, 2022 (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10). For the sake of simplicity, we refer to
the provision by its new numbering. All further statutory references are to the Penal
Code.

                                              2
committing the offense. Defendant timely noticed this appeal and we appointed counsel

to represent him.

                                         DISCUSSION

          Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth statements of the case and facts but

does not present any issues for adjudication. Counsel requests we exercise our discretion

under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 to conduct an independent review of

the record and suggests we address the questions whether the trial court followed proper

procedures and whether it erred in denying defendant’s petition.

          We notified defendant that his counsel had filed a brief stating no arguable issues

could be found and that this court may, but is not required, to conduct an independent

review of the record. (People v. Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th 216.) We invited him to

file any arguments he deemed necessary and cautioned that failure to timely file a

supplemental brief might result in the dismissal of his appeal as abandoned. Defendant

did not file a brief.

          Neither defendant nor his counsel have presented an issue and we decline to

exercise our discretion to review the record. Accordingly, we dismiss defendant’s

appeal.

                                                3
                                  DISPOSITION

      The appeal is dismissed as abandoned.

      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                                RAMIREZ
                                                          P. J.

We concur:

McKINSTER
                        J.

MILLER
                        J.

                                         4