Court Opinion

ID: 9388478
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-20 17:02:54.1037+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:20.546198
License: Public Domain

Filed 4/20/23 P. v. Gore 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                                                                C096965

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                      (Super. Ct. No. 00F01551)

           v.

    ANTONIO GORE,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Defendant Antonio Gore appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for
resentencing under former Penal Code section 1170.95 (now section 1172.6).1 Appellate
counsel filed a brief raising no arguable issues under People v. Delgadillo (2022)
14 Cal.5th 216, but nonetheless requesting we exercise our discretion to review the entire
record for arguable issues on appeal.

1      Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. Effective June 30, 2022,
the Legislature renumbered former section 1170.95 to section 1172.6. (Stats. 2022, ch.
58, § 10.) There were no substantive changes to the statute.

                                                             1
       On February 4, 2023, appellate counsel wrote defendant, explaining she would be
filing a Delgadillo brief, and if defendant failed to file a propria persona supplemental
brief, his appeal would likely be dismissed. On February 6, 2023, this court sent a letter
notifying defendant: 1) his counsel filed an appellate brief stating her 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; and 3) in accordance with the procedures set forth in
Delgadillo, defendant had 30 days to file a supplemental brief or letter raising any
argument he wanted this court to consider. In addition, we reiterated if this court did not
receive a letter or brief within that 30-day period, his appeal could be dismissed 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.)

                                             2
                                    DISPOSITION
      The appeal is dismissed.

                                                    \s\                    ,
                                                McADAM, J.*

      We concur:

         \s\           ,
      MAURO, Acting P. J.

         \s\               ,
      DUARTE, J.

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

                                            3