Court Opinion

ID: 9929496
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-02 20:02:19.899374+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:24:50.379314
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/2/24 P. v. Ruiz 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                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,
                                                                                             F085544
           Plaintiff and Respondent,
                                                                               (Super. Ct. No. BF162719B)
                    v.

 GUADALUPE RUIZ,                                                                          OPINION
           Defendant and Appellant.

                                                   THE COURT*
         APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Kern County. Brian M.
McNamara, Judge.
         Kendall D. Wasley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
         Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
                                                        -ooOoo-
         In 2017, defendant Guadalupe Ruiz was convicted after a jury trial of second
degree murder. He was sentenced to 15 years to life plus three years. In 2020, this court

         * Before Meehan, Acting P. J., Snauffer, J., and DeSantos, J.
affirmed the judgment on direct appeal. (People v. Ruiz (Sep. 10, 2020, F076454)
[nonpub. opn.].)
       In 2022, Ruiz filed a petition for resentencing of his murder conviction pursuant to
Penal Code section 1172.6.1 The trial court issued an order to show cause. An
evidentiary hearing was originally set for August 25, 2022. The prosecution filed a brief
in opposition to resentencing, to which the defense filed a reply. The prosecution later
filed an additional brief in opposition to the petition for resentencing, requesting the court
to take judicial notice of several case documents.
       On November 14, 2022, the trial court denied Ruiz’s petition in a written decision.
       A timely notice of appeal was filed on December 29, 2022.
       On appeal, Ruiz’s counsel filed a brief with this court pursuant to People v.
Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) 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 October 25, 2023, this court sent an order to Ruiz 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 Penal Code
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
for appeals from the denial of Penal Code section 1172.6 petitions; in accordance with the
procedures set forth in Delgadillo, Ruiz 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

       1 Ruiz filed his petition under former Penal Code section 1170.95, which was
amended effective January 1, 2022, and then renumbered as Penal Code section 1172.6,
effective June 30, 2022, without further substantive changes. (People v. Saibu (2022)
81 Cal.App.5th 709, 715, fn. 3.) We refer to the subject statute by its current number
throughout this opinion.

                                              2.
receive a letter or brief within that 30-day period, this court may dismiss the appeal as
abandoned.
       On November 28, 2023, this court granted Ruiz’s request for an extension of time
to file a letter brief up to December 27, 2023.
       Since more than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication
from Ruiz, we consider his appeal abandoned and order dismissal. (Delgadillo, supra,
14 Cal.5th at p. 232.)
                                      DISPOSITION
       The appeal is dismissed.

                                             3.