Opinion
C091683
06-06-2023
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MICHAEL CHAVEZ, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. 02F04333.
OPINION ON TRANSFER
HULL, Acting P. J.
Defendant Michael Chavez appealed the trial court's denial of his petition for resentencing filed under Penal Code former section 1170.95 (now section 1172.6). Defendant's appointed counsel initially filed a brief asking this court to conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal, pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. This court dismissed the appeal as abandoned, but our Supreme Court granted review and transferred the case back to this court with directions to vacate our decision and reconsider whether to exercise our discretion to conduct an independent review of the record or provide any other relief in light of People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 232-233 and footnote 6. (People v. Chavez (Mar. 22, 2023, S267909).) Accordingly, we vacated the order dismissing the appeal.
Effective June 30, 2022, the Legislature renumbered Penal Code section 1170.95 as section 1172.6 with no substantive change in the text of the provision. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.)
On March 29, 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. We also 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.
We concur:
DUARTE, J. EARL, J.