People v. West CA3

Filed 6/8/23 P. v. West 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, C097423
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 08F10252)
v.
DOMINICK WEST,
Defendant and Appellant.
A jury found defendant Dominick West guilty of, among other things, second
degree murder by personally firing a gun from a motor vehicle with the intent to inflict
great bodily injury (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 190, subd. (d))1 and found true the
attached allegation that he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing
death during the offense (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). The trial court sentenced him to 51
1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
1
years to life in state prison and we affirmed the judgment, except for an order of
restitution, in 2011. (People v. West (Sept. 9, 2011, C064703) [nonpub. opn.].)
Defendant filed a petition for resentencing under former section 1170.95.2 The
court obtained briefing from counsel and held a prima facie hearing. The trial court
denied the petition after finding defendant failed to make a sufficient prima facie showing
because he actually killed the victim, and the jury was not instructed on theories of felony
murder or the natural and probable consequences doctrine. 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 March 16, 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
appeal as abandoned. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no
communication from defendant.
2 The Legislature amended section 1170.95 effective January 1, 2022, under Senate
Bill No. 775 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.). (Stats. 2021, ch. 551.) Further, effective June 30,
2022, the Legislature renumbered section 1170.95 to section 1172.6 without substantive
change. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.)
2
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/
EARL, J.
We concur:
/s/
MAURO, Acting P. J.
/s/
KRAUSE, J.
3