Court Opinion

ID: 9907667
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-06 20:02:40.036387+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:58:59.888879
License: Public Domain

Filed 12/6/23 P. v. Woodward 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                                                                   C098131

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                      (Super. Ct. No. 06F10109)

           v.

 DANIEL HEATH WOODWARD,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Appointed counsel for defendant Daniel Heath Woodward filed an opening brief
that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine
whether there are any arguable issues on appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25
Cal.3d 436. Finding no arguable errors that would result in a disposition more favorable
to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.
                                                  BACKGROUND
         In 2009, defendant was convicted on two counts of committing a lewd act on a
child (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)) and the allegation he committed the offense against

                                                             1
more than one victim was found true. Accordingly, the trial court sentenced defendant to
consecutive terms of 15 years to life.
       In February 2023, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Department)
moved the trial court to recall defendant’s sentence and be granted compassionate release
pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.2. The People objected to the Department’s
recommendation. On March 2, 2023, the trial court found defendant did not meet the
criteria for compassionate release and denied the motion to recall defendant’s sentence.
       Defendant appeals from this order.
                                         DISCUSSION
       Appointed counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural
history of the case and requests this court review the record and determine whether there
are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 436.)
Defendant was advised by counsel of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days
from the date the opening brief was filed. More than 30 days have elapsed, and
defendant has not filed a supplemental brief.
       Though Wende requirements generally “do not apply to an appeal from the denial
of postconviction relief,” we have exercised our discretion to conduct an independent
review of the record. (People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 226, 232.) We find
no arguable errors that are favorable to defendant. Accordingly, we will affirm the trial
court’s order.

                                             2
                                     DISPOSITION
       The order denying defendant’s motion to recall his sentence is affirmed.

                                                      /s/
                                                Keithley, J.*

We concur:

      /s/
Hull, Acting P. J.

     /s/
Renner, J.

*       Judge of the Butte County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant
to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

                                            3