Opinion
E083022
08-05-2024
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JEFFREY TODD EDWARDS, Defendant and Appellant.
Marta I. Stanton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County No. FBA02278, Michael Dauber, Judge. Appeal dismissed.
Marta I. Stanton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
RAMIREZ P. J.
Defendant and appellant Jeffrey Todd Edwards appeals the order of the San Bernardino County Superior Court denying his Penal Code section 1172.6 petition for resentencing. We will dismiss the appeal.
Defendant's petition was filed on a section 1170.95 petition form. After his petition was filed, section 1170.95 was renumbered as section 1172.6 without change in the text, effective June 30, 2022 (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10). For the sake of simplicity, we refer to the provision by its new numbering. All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
BACKGROUND
In June 1996, a jury convicted defendant of several offenses, including two counts of willful, deliberate, and premeditated attempted murder (§§ 187, subd. (a), 664) and found true the allegations he had used a firearm in the commission of those offenses and personally inflicted great bodily injury on each of the two victims (§§ 12022.5, subd. (a), 12022.7, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced defendant to a determinate term of 22 years to be followed by an indeterminate term of 60 years to life in state prison. Defendant appealed the judgment and we affirmed. (People v. Edwards (Sept. 3, 1998, E019365) [nonpub. opn.].)
In September 2021, defendant filed a petition pursuant to section 1172.6. In relevant part, that statute permits persons to petition for resentencing if they were convicted of attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine and could not presently be convicted of that crime because of changes to sections 188 or 189 made effective January 1, 2019. (§ 1172.6, subd. (a).)
The People filed a written opposition to the petition, arguing defendant was ineligible for section 1172.6 resentencing relief. They pointed out that neither the allegations in the information, the jury instructions, or the verdict forms, which were attached to the opposition, do not include any theory related to the natural and probable consequences doctrine.
At the January 2024 hearing, defendant's counsel stated she had reviewed the record of conviction and submitted. The trial court reviewed and discussed the information, the jury instructions, and the verdicts. It found defendant was not convicted on any theory rendered impermissible by the changes in the law and denied his petition. Defendant timely noticed this appeal, and we appointed counsel to represent him.
Discussion
Defendant's counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo) that does not raise any issues. The brief suggests this court should exercise its discretion to independently review the record and, in an effort to assist in that review, set forth the following issue considered by counsel: whether the trial court following the required procedures when ruling on defendant's section 1172.6 petition.
Upon receipt of the opening brief, we advised defendant that, because the appeal is from the denial of a postconviction proceeding, this court is not required to conduct an independent review of the record, and cited Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th 216. We invited defendant to file any supplemental brief deemed necessary and advised him that failure to do so might result in dismissal of the appeal as abandoned. Defendant did not file a brief.
Neither defendant nor his counsel have presented an issue, and upon our review of the record, we do not find any error. Accordingly, we dismiss defendant's appeal.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
We concur: MILLER, J., RAPHAEL, J.