Court Opinion

ID: 9407924
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-10 20:04:29.154568+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:40.888025
License: Public Domain

Filed 7/10/23 P. v. Brooks 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                                        (Placer)
                                                            ----

 THE PEOPLE,                                                                                   C095912

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                      (Super. Ct. No. 62127722)

           v.

 JOSEPH RAY BROOKS,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         This case comes to us following an appeal by defendant Joseph Ray Brooks from
the trial court’s postjudgment order summarily denying defendant’s Penal Code section
1170.126 petition for resentencing.
         Defendant’s appellate counsel originally requested that we review the record to
determine whether there were any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436.) Given the procedural stance of this case, we determined defendant was
not entitled to a Wende review and that his appeal had been abandoned by his failure to
raise any claim of error. Accordingly, we dismissed the appeal.

                                                             1
       Defendant petitioned our Supreme Court for review; that court subsequently
directed us to vacate our prior decision and reconsider the matter in light of People v.
Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216.
       On May 31, 2023, this court sent a letter notifying defendant: (1) his counsel filed
an appellate brief stating a 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 advised defendant that if the court did not receive a letter brief within that
period, “the court may dismiss the appeal as abandoned.”
       In the interim, we granted appellate counsel’s request for an extension of time to
file a supplemental brief on remand, extending the deadline for responsive briefing to
July 3, 2023. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.200(b)(1), 8.63(b)(10).) On June 14, 2023,
counsel filed a Delgadillo brief requesting that this court exercise its discretion to
conduct an independent review of the record. Defendant did not file a supplemental brief
within the 30 days following the Delgadillo notice and did not file a brief after the
extension of the briefing deadline to July 3, 2023.
       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/
                                            Duarte, Acting P. J.

We concur:

       /s/
Earl, J.

     /s/
Boulware Eurie, J.

                                        3