People v. Vinson CA3 ( 2023 )

Filed 5/11/23 P. v. Vinson CA3
Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
THE PEOPLE, C096242
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 17FE006798)
v. OPINION ON
TRANSFER
TERIS VINSON,
Defendant and Appellant.
This appeal arises from the trial court’s denial of defendant Teris Vinson’s petition
for resentencing under Penal Code former section 1170.95.1 2 We appointed counsel to
represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that set forth the relevant
procedural history of the case and asked this court to review the record and determine
whether any arguable issues on appeal exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.)
1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2 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.)
1
We dismissed that appeal and the Supreme Court granted defendant’s petition for review
and transferred the case back to us with directions to vacate our prior decision and
reconsider the matter in light of People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216. We vacated
our decision. Counsel filed a brief on transfer raising no arguable issues under
Delgadillo and requests that we exercise our discretion to review the entire record for
arguable issues on appeal or comply with the notice procedures approved in Delgadillo.
On March 28, 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.
KRAUSE , J.
We concur:
DUARTE , Acting P. J.
2
EARL , J.
3