People v. Chavez CA3

Filed 6/6/23 P. v. Chavez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, C091683
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 02F04333)
v. OPINION ON TRANSFER
MICHAEL CHAVEZ,
Defendant and Appellant.
Defendant Michael Chavez appealed the trial court’s denial of his petition for
resentencing filed under Penal Code former section 1170.95 (now section 1172.6).1
Defendant’s appointed counsel initially filed a brief asking this court to conduct an
independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on
1 Effective June 30, 2022, the Legislature renumbered Penal Code section 1170.95
as section 1172.6 with no substantive change in the text of the provision. (Stats. 2022,
ch. 58, § 10.)
1
appeal, pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. This court dismissed the
appeal as abandoned, but our Supreme Court granted review and transferred the case
back to this court with directions to vacate our decision and reconsider whether to
exercise our discretion to conduct an independent review of the record or provide any
other relief in light of People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 232-233 and
footnote 6. (People v. Chavez (Mar. 22, 2023, S267909).) Accordingly, we vacated the
order dismissing the appeal.
On March 29, 2023, we notified defendant: 1) counsel had filed a brief indicating
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. We also 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 the appeal dismissed.
(People v. Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.)
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
HULL, Acting P. J.
We concur:
2
DUARTE, J.
EARL, J.
3