Opinion
E082573
09-06-2024
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RONNIE STEVEN MARTIN, Defendant and Appellant.
William D. Farber, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County No. RIF098012. John D. Molloy, Judge. Dismissed.
William D. Farber, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
McKINSTER J.
On July 25, 2002, a jury convicted defendant and appellant Ronnie Steven Martin of murdering his ex-wife, Dawn Norris, and two counts of felony child endangerment for committing the violent stabbing in front of his niece and nephew. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 273a, subd. (a); all further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.) The jury also found true a special circumstance allegation that the murder involved the infliction of torture (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(18)), and further that defendant personally used a deadly weapon (§§ 12022, subd. (b), 1192.7, subd. (c)(23)). The trial court sentenced defendant to life in prison without the possibility of parole (LWOP), plus a consecutive determinate term of seven years. This court affirmed defendant's conviction. (People v. Martin (E032265, Nov. 4, 2003) [nonpub. opn.].)
In April 2023, defendant filed a form petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. The trial court appointed counsel for defendant and ordered that the court file be produced for the parties. At the prima facie hearing on defendant's petition, the prosecutor stated: "There were no violative instructions. The special[ instructions] for felony murder [sic: the special circumstances instructions] were given only to elevate it to LWOP, not for felony murder itself. There was no other individual involved besides the defendant. There is no theory by which malice could possibly be [imputed] to any other person besides the defendant." After confirming "no violative instructions were given," defense counsel submitted, and the court denied the petition.
On appeal, defendant's appointed counsel has filed a no-issue brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, and People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). Counsel did not argue against his client, but instead set forth a statement of the case, a statement of facts, and attested he found no issues to advance on appeal, including after consultation with Appellate Defenders, Inc. Counsel identified one potential issue among others he concluded lacked arguable merit, in the event we were to undertake an independent review: Did the court err in summarily denying resentencing on grounds defendant is ineligible as a matter of law?
We gave defendant the opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief. He did not do so, despite notice it could result in dismissal. (See Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232 [absent briefing, appellate court "may dismiss the appeal as abandoned"].) We have reviewed the jury instructions and confirmed none were given regarding felony murder nor that otherwise might suggest accomplice murder liability. To the contrary, the instructions the prosecutor loosely, and mistakenly, referred to as "felony murder" instructions were actually special circumstances instructions. Nevertheless, the prosecutor was correct that those instructions do not implicate resentencing here. Nothing warrants our further independent review for arguable postconviction error or further expenditure of judicial or party resources.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
We concur: RAMIREZ, P. J. FIELDS J.