Court Opinion

ID: 9561144
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:04:21.389858+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:39.148955
License: Public Domain

Filed 8/21/23 P. v. Muzquiz 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                    (Sacramento)
                                         ----

 THE PEOPLE,                                                                                   C093087

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                        (Super. Ct. No. 88534)

           v.                                                                     OPINION ON TRANSFER

 JOHN DANIEL MUZQUIZ,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         This appeal arises from the trial court’s denial of defendant John Daniel
Muzquiz’s petition for resentencing under former Penal Code section 1170.95. Effective
June 30, 2022, the Legislature renumbered former Penal Code section 1170.95 to section
1172.6. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) There were no substantive changes to the statute.
Defendant filed his petition under former Penal Code section 1170.95.
         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 record and determine whether any arguable issues on appeal exist. (People v.
Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We dismissed that appeal, but 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.

                                                             1
          On April 7, 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.
We received mail back from the prison stating, “Return to sender, [defendant] out to
court.”
          We sent a duplicate letter to defendant’s current address on May 16, 2023,
providing him the same information. More than 30 days have elapsed since that second
notice, 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, J.

We concur:

EARL, P. J.

DUARTE, J.

                                               2