Opinion
E082181
04-23-2024
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANTOINE DION RATCLIFFE, Defendant and Appellant.
Theresa Osterman Stevenson, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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. RIF1103874 John D. Molloy, Judge. Appeal dismissed.
Theresa Osterman Stevenson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
RAMIREZ P. J.
Defendant and appellant Antoine Dion Ratcliffe appeals from the order of the Riverside County Superior Court denying his Penal Code section 1172.6 petition for resentencing.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
BACKGROUND
After a gang related shooting, a jury convicted defendant of a number of crimes, including the premeditated murder (§ 187, subd. (a)) of Chelsia Joyce. It also found true several enhancements, including that defendant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury or death of another person who was not an accomplice (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)).
We affirmed the convictions on appeal, but remanded the case with instructions to amend the abstract of judgment, to conduct a hearing on defendant's ability to pay certain fees and fines, and to permit the trial court to exercise its discretion to determine whether to strike or dismiss some of the enhancements. (People v. Ratcliffe (Feb. 11, 2020, E063690) [nonpub. opn.] (Ratcliffe I.).)
In defendant's appeal from the orders made at the resentencing hearing on remand, we modified the judgment to award defendant the correct number of custody credits. (People v. Ratcliffe (Mar. 14, 2022, E076359) [nonpub. opn.] (Ratcliffe II.).)
In May 2023, defendant filed the section 1172.6 petition for resentencing, which is the subject of this appeal. The trial court appointed counsel for defendant and set the matter for a prima facie hearing. At the hearing, the People moved to deny the petition on the grounds defendant had been convicted of premeditated murder and "firearms ... enhancements." They said a copy of the jury instructions had been sent to defendant's counsel, and no instructions had been given regarding aiding and abetting, natural and probable consequences, felony murder, or any other theory by which malice could possibly be imputed to defendant. Defendant's counsel "confirmed" the People's statements and submitted the matter. The court denied the petition.
Defendant timely noticed this appeal and we appointed counsel to represent him.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel filed an opening brief setting forth statements of the case and facts but does not present any issues for adjudication. Counsel requests we exercise our discretion under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 to conduct an independent review of the record.
We notified defendant that (i) his counsel had filed a brief stating no arguable issues could be found, and (ii) this court may, but is not required, to conduct an independent review of the record. (People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 231232.) We invited defendant to file within 30 days any supplemental brief deemed necessary, and cautioned that failure to timely file a supplemental brief might result in the dismissal of his appeal as abandoned. Defendant did not file a brief.
Neither defendant or 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: McKINSTER J. FIELDS J.