Court Opinion

ID: 9892728
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-24 18:05:40.798091+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:38:05.052515
License: Public Domain

Filed 10/24/23 P. v. Yang 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                                  C098083

           v.                                                                      (Super. Ct. No. 14F04073)

 JOHN YANG,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Defendant John Yang appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition
for resentencing under Penal Code former section 1170.95 (now Penal Code
section 1172.6).1 Appellate counsel filed a brief raising no arguable issues under
People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo) and asked that we exercise
our discretion to review the entire record for arguable issues on appeal.
         In a letter dated June 26, 2023, appellate counsel wrote defendant, explaining
he would be filing a Delgadillo brief and that defendant may file a supplemental
brief or letter within 30 days of the filing of the Delgadillo brief. In a second letter,

1 Effective June 30, 2022, the Legislature renumbered Penal Code former section
1170.95 as section 1172.6 without substantive changes. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.)

                                                             1
dated July 7, 2023, counsel further notified defendant that if defendant failed to file
a supplemental brief, his appeal would likely be dismissed as abandoned. On July 10,
2023, this court sent a letter notifying defendant: (1) his counsel filed an appellate brief
stating his 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 notified
defendant that if this court did not receive a letter or brief within that 30-day period,
the court may dismiss his appeal as abandoned. More than 30 days elapsed and we
received no communication from defendant.
       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/
ROBIE, Acting P. J.

    /S/
KRAUSE, J.

                                               2