Opinion
C097423
06-08-2023
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DOMINICK WEST, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. 08F10252
EARL, J.A jury found defendant Dominick West guilty of, among other things, second degree murder by personally firing a gun from a motor vehicle with the intent to inflict great bodily injury (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 190, subd. (d)) and found true the attached allegation that he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing death during the offense (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). The trial court sentenced him to 51 years to life in state prison and we affirmed the judgment, except for an order of restitution, in 2011. (People v. West (Sept. 9, 2011, C064703) [nonpub. opn.].)
Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
Defendant filed a petition for resentencing under former section 1170.95. The court obtained briefing from counsel and held a prima facie hearing. The trial court denied the petition after finding defendant failed to make a sufficient prima facie showing because he actually killed the victim, and the jury was not instructed on theories of felony murder or the natural and probable consequences doctrine. Defendant appealed.
The Legislature amended section 1170.95 effective January 1, 2022, under Senate Bill No. 775 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.). (Stats. 2021, ch. 551.) Further, effective June 30, 2022, the Legislature renumbered section 1170.95 to section 1172.6 without substantive change. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.)
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 that set forth the relevant procedural history of the case and asked this court to independently review the record and determine whether any arguable issues on appeal exist. Counsel also advised defendant that he had 30 days to file a supplemental brief and that failure to do so may result in dismissal of the appeal.
On March 16, 2023, we notified defendant that (1) counsel had filed a brief indicating that 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. In addition, we 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 it dismissed. (People v. Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.)
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
We concur: MAURO, Acting P. J., KRAUSE, J.