Court Opinion

ID: 9407922
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-10 20:04:28.63742+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:40.906449
License: Public Domain

Filed 7/10/23 P. v. Luft CA4/2

                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

                                   FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                 DIVISION TWO

 THE PEOPLE,

          Plaintiff and Respondent,                                      E080437

 v.                                                                      (Super.Ct.No. SWF1403253)

 BRIAN LEE LUFT,                                                         OPINION

          Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. John D. Molloy, Judge.

Dismissed.

         Johanna Pirko, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                                                 INTRODUCTION

         Defendant Brian Lee Luft appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for

resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75. Counsel filed a brief raising no arguable

issues under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo).
                                                             1
       On May 3, 2023, we notified defendant: (1) counsel filed a brief indicating no

arguable issues had been identified; (2) as a case arising from an order denying

postconviction relief, this court was not required to conduct an independent review of the

record, but we could do so in our discretion; and (3) in accordance with the procedures

set forth in Delgadillo, he had 30 days in which to file a supplemental brief raising any

argument he wanted this court to consider. We also notified defendant that if we did not

receive a 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.

(Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.)

                                      DISPOSITION

       The appeal is dismissed.

       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                                               FIELDS
                                                                                            J.

We concur:

McKINSTER
                Acting P. J.

CODRINGTON
                          J.

                                             2