Court Opinion

ID: 9387317
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-17 17:02:21.482955+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:12.837939
License: Public Domain

Filed 4/17/23 P. v. Davis 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                                                                C096542

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                      (Super. Ct. No. 04F06020)

           v.

    MICHAEL DAVIS,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Defendant Michael Davis appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for
resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6.1 Counsel filed a brief raising no arguable
issues under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 and requesting we exercise our
discretion to review the entire record for arguable issues on appeal.

1 Defendant filed this petition under former Penal Code section 1170.95. Effective
June 30, 2022, the Legislature renumbered Penal Code section 1170.95 to section 1172.6,
without substantive change (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10).

                                                             1
       On January 24, 2023, we notified defendant: (1) counsel had filed a brief
indicating 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 the appeal dismissed.
(People v. Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.)
                                      DISPOSITION
       The appeal is dismissed.

                                                      /s/
                                                  EARL, J.

We concur:

    /s/
ROBIE, Acting P. J.

    /s/
McAdam, J.*

* Judge of the Yolo County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to
article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

                                             2