People v. Reyna CA3 ( 2023 )

Filed 10/2/23 P. v. Reyna CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, C097539
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 16FE012775)
v.
ANTONIO REYNA,
Defendant and Appellant.
In 2019, a jury found defendant Antonio Reyna guilty of first degree murder
during the commission of a robbery or attempted robbery and found true that he had a
prior 2007 robbery conviction; the jury also found defendant guilty of being a felon in
possession of a firearm. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 190.2, subd. (a)(17), 29800, subd.
(a)(1).)1 The trial court sentenced him to life without the possibility of parole for the
1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
1
special circumstance murder and stayed the term for the possession offense. This court
affirmed the judgment in an unpublished opinion in 2022. (People v. Reyna (Jan. 24,
2022, C090267) [nonpub. opn.].)
Defendant filed a petition for resentencing under former section 1170.95.2 The
trial court obtained briefing from counsel and held a prima facie hearing. The court
denied the petition after finding defendant failed to make a sufficient prima facie showing
because the record of conviction showed defendant was tried after the changes to the
murder statutes and the jury was accurately instructed on murder liability based on the
new law. Defendant appealed.
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 July 10, 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
2 The Legislature amended section 1170.95 effective January 1, 2022, under Senate Bill
No. 775 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.; Stats. 2021, ch. 551.) Effective June 30, 2022, the
Legislature renumbered section 1170.95 to section 1172.6 without substantive change.
(Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.)
2
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.
/s/
Duarte, J.
We concur:
/s/
Hull, Acting P. J.
/s/
Keithley, J.*
*Judge of the Butte County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to
article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
3