DocketNumber: C091845A
Filed Date: 8/4/2023
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 8/4/2023
Filed 8/4/23 P. v. Ramirez CA3 Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Tehama) ---- THE PEOPLE, C091845 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. NCR91608) v. OPINION ON TRANSFER JOHNATHON RAMIREZ, Defendant and Appellant. Defendant Johnathon Ramirez appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to vacate the sentence and withdraw his plea under Penal Code section 1473.7. Appointed counsel filed an opening brief that requested this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979)25 Cal.3d 436
(Wende).) After defendant did not file a supplemental brief, we dismissed the appeal as abandoned in our original opinion filed January 26, 2021. 1 Defendant petitioned our Supreme Court for review; that court has now directed us to reconsider the matter in light of People v. Delgadillo (2022)14 Cal.5th 216
(Delgadillo). On June 6, 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. 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. We again 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: ROBIE, J. KRAUSE, J. 2