People v. Brass CA4/2 ( 2023 )

Filed 6/5/23 P. v. Brass CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E080675
v. (Super.Ct.No. FSB1302919)
ISAAC LAMONT BRASS, JR., OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Ronald M.
Christianson, Judge. (Retired Judge of the San Bernardino Super. Ct. assigned by the
Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Dismissed.
Christine Vento, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
Defendant and appellant Isaac Lamont Brass, Jr., appeals from the order of the San
Bernardino Superior Court denying his section 1172.6 petition for resentencing. 1
BACKGROUND
In 2013, a jury convicted defendant of several offenses, including attempted
murder. (§§ 664, 187.) It also found true that he personally used and discharged a
firearm in the commission of the attempt. Defendant appealed and we struck improperly
imposed on-probation enhancements, ordered amendment of the abstract of judgment to
reflect the change, and affirmed the judgment in all other respects. (People v. Brass
(Aug. 7, 2015, E060714) [nonpub. opn.] (Brass I.).)
In March 2022, defendant filed a section 1172.6 petition for resentencing. The
People opposed the petition and requested judicial notice of our opinion in Brass I, the
jury’s signed verdict forms, as well as the trial court’s files and records in defendant’s
case. Defendant argued his petition established on its face his entitlement to relief and,
therefore, the court should not decide the credibility of his allegations without first
holding an evidentiary hearing.
At the January 2023 hearing on the petition, the trial court granted the People’s
request for judicial notice and denied defendant’s petition on the ground that its review of
the court record established defendant was prosecuted and convicted on the sole theory
that he was the actual person who attempted to murder the victim and used a firearm in
1 Section 1170.95 was renumbered as section 1172.6 without change in the text,
effective June 30, 2022 (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10). For the sake of simplicity, we refer to
the provision by its new numbering. All further statutory references are to the Penal
Code.
2
committing the offense. Defendant timely noticed this appeal and we appointed counsel
to represent him.
DISCUSSION
Counsel filed an opening brief that sets 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 and suggests we address the questions whether the trial court followed proper
procedures and whether it erred in denying defendant’s petition.
We notified defendant that his counsel had filed a brief stating no arguable issues
could be found and that this court may, but is not required, to conduct an independent
review of the record. (People v. Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th 216.) We invited him to
file any arguments he 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 nor his counsel have presented an issue and we decline to
exercise our discretion to review the record. Accordingly, we dismiss defendant’s
appeal.
3
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed as abandoned.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P. J.
We concur:
McKINSTER
J.
MILLER
J.
4