Court Opinion

ID: 9400919
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-09 19:04:24.355042+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:48.904078
License: Public Domain

Filed 6/9/23 P. v. Leite 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                                                                C094428

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                      (Super. Ct. No. 04F09696)

           v.                                                                     OPINION ON TRANSFER

    ROSANN LEITE,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         This appeal arises from the trial court’s denial of defendant Rosann Leite’s
petition for resentencing under former Penal Code section 1170.95.1 We appointed
counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that set forth the

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. The Legislature amended
section 1170.95 effective January 1, 2022, under Senate Bill No. 775 (2021-2022 Reg.
Sess.) (Stats. 2021, ch. 551). Further, effective June 30, 2022, the Legislature
renumbered section 1170.95 to section 1172.6 without substantive change. (Stats. 2022,
ch. 58, § 10.)

                                                             1
relevant procedural history of the case and asked this court to review the record and
determine whether any arguable issues on appeal existed. (People v. Wende (1979) 25
Cal.3d 436.) We dismissed that appeal, and the Supreme Court granted defendant’s
petition for review and transferred the case back to us with directions to vacate our prior
decision and reconsider the matter in light of People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216
(Delgadillo). We vacated our decision. Counsel filed a brief on transfer raising no
arguable issues under Delgadillo and requests that we exercise our discretion to review
the entire record for arguable issues on appeal or comply with the notice procedures
approved in Delgadillo.
                                       I. DISCUSSION
          On April 10, 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 she wanted this court to consider. In addition, we notified defendant that if
we did not receive a letter or brief within that 30-day period, the court may dismiss the
appeal as abandoned. Defendant did not timely file a letter or brief within the 30-day
period.
          We consider defendant’s appeal abandoned and order it dismissed. (Delgadillo,
supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.)

                                                2
                                 II. DISPOSITION
      The appeal is dismissed.

                                                   /S/

                                            RENNER, J.

We concur:

/S/

DUARTE, Acting P. J.

/S/

KRAUSE, J.

                                        3