Court Opinion

ID: 9451073
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 17:06:06.174648+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:38:18.537050
License: Public Domain

Filed 8/4/23 P. v. Ramirez 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                                       (Tehama)
                                                            ----

THE PEOPLE,                                                                                  C091845

                   Plaintiff and Respondent,                                    (Super. Ct. No. NCR91608)

         v.                                                                     OPINION ON TRANSFER

JOHNATHON RAMIREZ,

                   Defendant and Appellant.

         Defendant Johnathon Ramirez appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to
vacate the sentence and withdraw his plea under Penal Code section 1473.7. Appointed
counsel filed an opening brief that requested this court to review the record and determine
whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436
(Wende).) After defendant did not file a supplemental brief, we dismissed the appeal as
abandoned in our original opinion filed January 26, 2021.

                                                             1
       Defendant petitioned our Supreme Court for review; that court has now directed us
to reconsider the matter in light of People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216
(Delgadillo).
       On June 6, 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. More
than 30 days have elapsed and we have received no communication from defendant.
       We again consider defendant’s appeal abandoned and order the appeal dismissed.
(People v. Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.)

                                       DISPOSITION
       The appeal is dismissed.

                                                  HULL, Acting P. J.

We concur:

ROBIE, J.

KRAUSE, J.

                                              2