People v. Love CA3 ( 2023 )

Filed 7/10/23 P. v. Love 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, C092437
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. 15F06950,
14F06720)
v.
OPINION ON TRANSFER
DAEVON JAMELL LOVE,
Defendant and Appellant.
Defendant Daevon Jamell Love was convicted of multiple assault counts against
four different victims as well as shooting at an occupied vehicle and being a felon in
possession of a firearm. Various firearm enhancements were found true as was an
enhancement for a prior serious felony conviction. We affirmed defendant’s convictions
on appeal (People v. Love (Apr. 25, 2019, C084190) [nonpub. opn.]), but remanded the
matter for the trial court to exercise newly granted discretion to strike one or more of the
firearm enhancements and the prior serious felony enhancement based on changes in the
law that took effect while defendant’s appeal was pending. Upon remand, the trial court
1
declined to exercise its discretion to strike the enhancements, leaving defendant’s 30-year
four-month prison sentence unchanged.
Defendant appealed and appointed 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.) We dismissed that appeal as abandoned, and our 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 (Delgadillo).
On May 25, 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 that 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. (Delgadillo,
supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.)
2
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
/s/
ROBIE, Acting P. J.
We concur:
/s/
RENNER, J.
/s/
MESIWALA, J.
3