Court Opinion

ID: 9399368
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-02 18:04:08.542216+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:14.714098
License: Public Domain

Filed 6/2/23 P. v. Blackman 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                                        (Shasta)
                                                            ----

    THE PEOPLE,                                                                                C093647

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                       (Super. Ct. No. 96F0872)

           v.                                                                     OPINION ON TRANSFER

    ROGER WELLBORN BLACKMAN,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         This appeal arises from the trial court’s denial of defendant Roger Wellborn
Blackman’s petition for resentencing under Penal Code former section 1170.95.1 2 We
appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that
set forth the relevant procedural history of the case and asked this court to review the

1        Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2      The Legislature amended section 1170.95 effective January 1, 2022, under Senate
Bill No. 775 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2021, ch. 551). Further, effective June 30,
2022, the Legislature renumbered section 1170.95 to section 1172.6 without substantive
change. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.)

                                                             1
record and determine whether any arguable issues on appeal exist. (People v. Wende
(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We dismissed that appeal, and the Supreme Court granted
defendant’s petition for review and transferred the case back to us with directions to
vacate our prior decision and reconsider the matter in light of People v. Delgadillo (2022)
14 Cal.5th 216. We vacated our decision. Counsel did not file any further briefs.
       On March 28, 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.)
                                      DISPOSITION
       The appeal is dismissed.

                                                        KRAUSE                , J.

We concur:

      ROBIE                 , Acting P. J.

      HULL                  , J.

                                             2