Court Opinion

ID: 9752396
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 18:05:17.490875+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:42:27.838164
License: Public Domain

Filed 8/28/23 P. v. Robinson 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                                         (Yolo)
                                                            ----

THE PEOPLE,                                                                                  C092166

                   Plaintiff and Respondent,                                    (Super. Ct. No. CRF956265)

         v.                                                                     OPINION ON TRANSFER

RUSLEY ROBINSON, JR.,

                   Defendant and Appellant.

         This appeal arises from the trial court’s resentencing of defendant Rusley
 Robinson, Jr., pursuant to Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d)(1). In his original
 appeal, we appointed counsel to represent defendant and his appointed counsel asked
 this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any
 arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant filed a
 supplemental brief raising claims related solely to the validity of the underlying
 convictions, long since final, including challenges to the propriety of the information
 and complaint and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. He raised no claims as to the
 resentencing. We dismissed that appeal.

                                                             1
       The 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 People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). We vacated our
 decision.
       On June 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
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.
(Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.)

                                       DISPOSITION
       The appeal is dismissed.

                                                  HULL, Acting P. J.

We concur:

MAURO, J.

DUARTE, J.

                                              2