Court Opinion

ID: 9954064
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-25 17:02:41.085558+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:11:50.238047
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/25/24 P. v. Chavez 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                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                      E082677

 v.                                                                      (Super.Ct.No. FVI00077)

 MICHAEL EDWARD CHAVEZ,                                                  OPINION

          Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Gregory S. Tavill,

Judge. Dismissed.

         Ava R. Stralla, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

         In August 2023, seeking postconviction relief in some manner, defendant and

appellant Michael Edward Chavez mailed in propria persona to the San Bernardino

Superior Court a document he entitled, “Motion for the Statistics of the Racial Injustice

                                                             1
Act AB 256 & SB 81.” (Capitalization adjusted.) The motion consisted of two

paragraphs, the first of which “ask[ed] th[e] Honorable Court for the Statistics.”

Defendant did not identify any particular statistical information he sought. The

remainder of the paragraph suggested that the request was in reference to sentencing, but

defendant’s request was disjointed and unclear, as follows: “Where there is Prejudice in

sentencing, and other prejudice of People of Color in the County of San Berna[r]dino and

Victorville, CA. By the Police and the DA.” The motion made no specific claim or

claims of prejudice or discrimination and provided no underlying information or details

to support defendant’s statistics request.

       The next paragraph then suggested the motion related to parole rather than

sentencing. The paragraph stated: “And I am Petitioning this Honorable Court for an

Attorney to Help . . . with My Writ of Habe[a]s Corpus on Parole Denial. I have no

history of violence.”1

       In conclusion, the motion cited “YOUNG V. SUPERIOR COURT OF SOLANO

COUNTY.” In that case, the appellate court held that a moving party’s good cause

showing of plausible justification regarding potential violations of the California Racial

Justice Act of 2020 (Stats. 2020, ch. 317, § 1) was necessary, but not sufficient, for the

defendant to obtain pretrial discovery related to charging decisions in assertedly similar

       1 The appellate record includes trial court minutes and an abstract of judgment for
defendant’s December 1993 jury trial conviction for two counts of assault with a deadly
weapon. The record also includes an abstract of judgment for a subsequent burglary
conviction in 1996 for which, with two prior strikes, defendant was sentenced to an
indeterminate term of 25 years to life.

                                              2
cases. (Young v. Superior Court (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 138, 144; see Pen. Code, § 745

[codification of the Racial Justice Act; discussed in Young].) Among many factors

besides the requisite good cause showing, the trial court must also consider and balance:

(1) whether the requested material was adequately described, and (2) whether the

material is reasonably available to the government entity from which it is sought or if the

material is elsewhere available to the defendant. (Young, at pp. 144-145.)

       The trial court denied defendant’s motion. The court’s minute order stated: “The

Court is unaware of any records as requested in the motion. The request for records is

denied because the motion does not adequately describe the records sought and the

motion does not allege facts constituting good cause as required. See PC745(d).”

Defendant appealed.

       This court appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel

subsequently filed a brief stating that her record review disclosed no arguable appellate

issues, including after consultation with another attorney at Appellate Defenders, Inc.

Counsel summarized the background relevant to defendant’s appeal and requested that

we review the matter under the procedures outlined in People v. Delgadillo (2022)

14 Cal.5th 216, 231-232 (Delgadillo).) Counsel recognized that we have no obligation to

search the record independently for arguable issues. (Id. at pp. 226-228.) Counsel

advised defendant he could personally file a supplemental brief to raise an arguable issue.

       This court similarly gave defendant written notice of his opportunity to file a

supplemental brief, cautioning that failure to do so “may result in the dismissal of the

                                             3
appeal as abandoned.” Defendant did not respond. For postjudgment claims, when the

defendant does not file a supplemental brief, the appellate court “may dismiss the appeal

as abandoned.” (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.) We conclude that is the proper

result here.

                                     DISPOSITION

       The appeal is dismissed.

       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                                              McKINSTER
                                                                               Acting P. J.

We concur:

CODRINGTON
                          J.

FIELDS
                          J.

                                            4