Opinion
B302852
08-03-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KEISHUN VERNILL HOWARD, Defendant and Appellant.
Leonard J. Klaif, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. A650427) APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Pat Connolly, Judge. Dismissed. Leonard J. Klaif, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
____________________
Keishun Vernill Howard appeals from an order denying his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95. For the reasons explained below, we dismiss the appeal.
Further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
A jury convicted Howard of second degree murder under section 187 for the 1988 killing of Cardaos White and found true the allegation under section 12022.5 that he personally used a firearm in the commission of the crime. The trial court sentenced Howard to 15 years to life plus two years for the section 12022.5 enhancement. We affirmed the conviction and sentence in an unpublished opinion in September 1991. (People v. Howard (Sept. 25, 1991, B046938) [nonpub. opn.].)
On May 23, 2019, Howard filed a petition for resentencing under section 1170.95. On October 23, 2019, the trial court denied the petition on the ground that Howard was not convicted under a theory of felony murder or based on the natural and probable consequences doctrine, but was White's actual killer and was, therefore, not eligible for resentencing under section 1170.95.
Howard appealed and this court appointed counsel for him.
Howard's appellate counsel filed a brief raising no issues on appeal and requesting that we independently review the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). He notified Howard that he would be filing the brief and that Howard may file a supplemental brief with this court.
On April 27, 2020, this court sent a letter to Howard informing him that he may, within 30 days, "submit by brief or letter any grounds of appeal, contentions, or argument which appellant wishes this court to consider." Howard did not file a supplemental brief.
Because Howard's appeal is not from his conviction, he is not entitled to our independent review of the record pursuant to Wende or its federal constitutional counterpart, Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 119; People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496, 503 (Serrano); Pennsylvania v. Finley (1987) 481 U.S. 551, 559.) He is entitled, however, to file a supplemental brief and, if he files such a brief, to our review of his contentions. (See Serrano, at p. 503; cf., Ben C., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 544, fn. 6; Ben C., at pp. 554-555 (dis. opn. of George, C. J.).) If no supplemental brief is filed, we may deem the appeal to be abandoned and dismiss the appeal. (Serrano, at pp. 503-504.)
Under Serrano, in a criminal appeal in which Wende does not apply, counsel who finds no arguable issues is still required to (1) inform the court that counsel has found no arguable issues to be pursued on appeal; (2) file a brief setting out the applicable facts and law; (3) provide a copy of the brief to appellant; and (4) inform the appellant of the right to file a supplemental brief. (Serrano, supra, 211 Cal.App.4th at p. 503, citing Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529, 544 (Ben C.).) --------
We are satisfied that Howard's counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities. (See Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441; Serrano, supra, 211 Cal.App.4th at p. 503.) Because no supplemental brief was filed, we deem the appeal abandoned.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
CHANEY, J.
We concur:
ROTHSCHILD, P. J.
BENDIX, J.