People v. Imarogbe CA3 ( 2023 )

Filed 5/30/23 P. v. Imarogbe 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, C093037
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 95F09990)
v. OPINION ON TRANSFER
AJANI-ABDEL WAHID IMAROGBE,
Defendant and Appellant.
Defendant Ajani-Abdel Wahid Imarogbe appeals the trial court’s denial of his
petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6.1 Appellate counsel filed a
brief raising no arguable issues under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and
1 Defendant petitioned for resentencing under former Penal Code section 1170.95.
Effective June 30, 2022, the Legislature renumbered former section 1170.95 as section
1172.6 without substantive changes. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.)
1
requesting we exercise our discretion to review the entire record for arguable issues on
appeal.
On March 18, 2021, prior to our Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Delgadillo
(2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, this court dismissed the appeal as abandoned. Our Supreme Court
thereafter granted review and held the case pending its decision in Delgadillo. On
March 29, 2023, the matter was transferred back to this court with directions to vacate
our previous decision and reconsider the matter in light of Delgadillo.
On April 7, 2023, we vacated our order dismissing the appeal. The same day, we
also notified defendant: (1) appellate counsel had filed an appellate brief stating
counsel’s review of the record did not identify any arguable issues; (2) as a case arising
from an order denying postconviction relief, defendant was not constitutionally entitled to
counsel or to an independent review of the record; (3) in accordance with the procedures
set forth in Delgadillo, defendant had 30 days to file a supplemental brief or letter raising
any argument defendant wanted this court to consider; and (4) if this court did not receive
a letter or brief within that 30-day period, we 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 the appeal dismissed.
(People v. Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.)
2
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
/s/
ROBIE, Acting P. J.
We concur:
/s/
MAURO, J.
/s/
RENNER, J.
3