Court Opinion

ID: 9409023
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-14 17:04:21.5092+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:48.358388
License: Public Domain

Filed 7/14/23 P. v. Vue 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                                  C091988

           v.                                                                      (Super. Ct. No. 98F09534)

 MOUA VUE,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Defendant Moua Vue appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for
resentencing under Penal Code former section 1170.95 (now Penal Code section 1172.6).
Defendant’s counsel asked this court to review the record and determine whether there
are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) This court
dismissed the appeal but the California Supreme Court transferred the matter back to us
with directions to vacate our decision and reconsider it in light of People v. Delgadillo
(2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo).
         On April 18, 2023, we notified defendant: 1) counsel had filed a brief indicating
that no arguable issues had been identified; 2) as a case arising from an order denying

                                                             1
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 that if we did not receive a letter
or brief within that 30-day period, the court may dismiss the appeal as abandoned.
On June 20, 2023, defendant asked to withdraw his appeal. He did not file a
supplemental brief or letter.
       We consider defendant’s appeal abandoned and order the appeal dismissed.
(Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.)
                                      DISPOSITION
       The appeal is dismissed.

                                                     /S/
                                                  MAURO, J.

We concur:

    /S/
EARL, P. J.

    /S/
KRAUSE, J.

                                              2