Court Opinion

ID: 9879230
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-27 18:03:42.343389+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:48:13.657582
License: Public Domain

Filed 9/27/23 P. v. Shepard CA3
                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                                                                   C098201

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                    (Super. Ct. No. 17FE001101)

           v.

 MARCUS SHEPARD,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         In October 2019, defendant Marcus Shepard pled no contest to the second degree
murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a))1 of his three-year-old nephew in exchange for 15
years to life in state prison and dismissal of a child abuse charge (§ 273ab). The court
sentenced defendant to an indeterminate term of 15 years to life.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                                             1
       In February 2022, defendant filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6.
The court obtained briefing from counsel and held a prima facie hearing. The trial court
denied the petition after finding defendant failed to make a sufficient prima facie showing
because he pled no contest after sections 188 and 189 had been amended and therefore
admitted all the elements of the second degree murder offense under the new statutory
scheme. Defendant appealed.
       Appointed counsel filed an opening brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 that set forth the relevant
procedural history of the case and asked this court to independently review the record and
determine whether any arguable issues on appeal exist. Counsel also advised defendant
that he had 30 days to file a supplemental brief and that failure to do so may result in
dismissal of the appeal.
       On July 13, 2023, we notified defendant that (1) counsel had filed a brief
indicating that 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 it dismissed. (People v.
Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.)

                                              2
                                 DISPOSITION
      The appeal is dismissed.

                                              /s/
                                          BOULWARE EURIE, J.

We concur:

    /s/
HULL, Acting P. J.

    /s/
MESIWALA, J.

                                      3