Court Opinion

ID: 9398287
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-30 19:04:22.429416+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:32.290412
License: Public Domain

Filed 5/30/23 P. v. Tarasuk 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                                         (Placer)
                                                            ----

 THE PEOPLE,

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                                  C090332

           v.                                                                      (Super. Ct. No. 62115893)

 OLEG TARASUK,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         The trial court denied defendant Oleg Tarasuk’s petition for resentencing under
Penal Code former section 1170.95 (now section 1172.6), and defendant appealed.
Appointed counsel asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are
any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) This court
dismissed the appeal, but the California Supreme Court granted defendant’s petition for
review and transferred the case back to this court with directions to vacate the prior
decision and reconsider the matter in light of People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216
(Delgadillo). We vacated the prior decision.

                                                             1
       On April 7, 2023, we notified defendant that (1) counsel 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 that if we did not
receive a letter or brief within that 30-day period, we may dismiss the appeal as
abandoned. More than 30 days elapsed and we received no communication from
defendant.
       We consider defendant’s appeal abandoned and order it dismissed.
(Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.)
                                      DISPOSITION
       The appeal is dismissed.

                                                    /S/
                                                 MAURO, J.

We concur:

    /S/
ROBIE, Acting P. J.

    /S/
RENNER, J.

                                             2