Court Opinion

ID: 9865584
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 19:04:27.213847+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:48:14.249020
License: Public Domain

Filed 9/25/23 P. v. Lyons 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                                                                   C097768

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                        (Super. Ct. No. 87151)

           v.

 WILLIE CARL LYONS,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Defendant Willie Carl Lyons appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for
resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6.1 Appellate counsel filed a brief raising no
arguable issues under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, and requesting we exercise
our discretion to review the entire record for arguable issues on appeal.

1 Defendant petitioned for resentencing under former Penal Code section 1170.95.
Effective June 30, 2022, the Legislature renumbered former Penal Code section 1170.95
as section 1172.6 without substantive changes. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.)

                                                             1
       On July 5, 2023, this court notified defendant: (1) appellate counsel had filed an
appellate brief stating counsel’s review of the record did not identify any arguable issues;
(2) as a case arising from an order denying postconviction relief, defendant was not
constitutionally entitled to counsel or to an independent review of the record; (3) in
accordance with the procedures set forth in People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216,
defendant had 30 days to file a supplemental brief or letter raising any argument
defendant wanted this court to consider; and (4) if this court did not receive a letter or
brief within that 30-day period, we 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.
(People v. Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.)
                                      DISPOSITION
       The appeal is dismissed.

                                                            /S/

                                                  RENNER, J.

We concur:

/S/

DUARTE, Acting P. J.

/S/

WISEMAN, J.*

 * Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, assigned by
the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

                                              2