Court Opinion

ID: 9405504
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-28 18:04:16.501731+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:22.538684
License: Public Domain

Filed 6/28/23 P. v. Currie 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                                     (Sacramento)
                                                            ----

 THE PEOPLE,                                                                                   C093500

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                       (Super. Ct. No. 117993)

           v.                                                                     OPINION ON TRANSFER

 WALTER CURRIE, JR.,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         This appeal comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436
(Wende).
         Defendant Walter Currie, Jr., was convicted of first degree murder after he, a
codefendant, and the victim were involved in an altercation in which the victim was
stabbed and killed. (People v. Currie (July 11, 1995, C017668) [nonpub. opn.].) We
affirmed the conviction in an unpublished decision in 1995. (Ibid.) After the passage of

                                                             1
Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.), defendant sought resentencing under
former Penal Code section 1170.95. (Former section 1170.95 has since been renumbered
section 1172.6, with no change in text [see stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10]; further undesignated
statutory references are to the Penal Code.) The trial court appointed counsel and
received briefing from the parties, in which the parties agreed defendant was not
prosecuted under the felony-murder rule or the natural and probable consequences
doctrine. The trial court denied the petition accordingly.
       Defendant appealed from the trial court’s order denying his petition for
resentencing.
       Appointed counsel for defendant asked this court to independently review the
record pursuant to Wende. Defendant failed to file a supplemental brief and we
dismissed the appeal as abandoned. The California Supreme Court granted review of the
case and later transferred the matter back to this court with instructions to vacate the
dismissal and reconsider the case in light of People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216
(Delgadillo). We vacated our decision.
       On March 30, 2023, we notified defendant that (1) counsel had filed a brief
indicating that 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 consider defendant’s appeal abandoned and order it dismissed. (People v.
Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.)

                                              2
                                DISPOSITION
     The appeal is dismissed.

                                         HULL, Acting P.J.

We concur:

RENNER, J.

BOULWARE EURIE, J.

                                     3