People v. Leavelle CA4/3

Filed 9/12/24 P. v. Leavelle CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G062862

v. (Super. Ct. No. 00NF1154)

KEVIN DESHAN LEAVELLE, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Jonathan S. Fish, Judge. Affirmed. Heather E. Shallenberger, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

We appointed counsel to represent Kevin Deshan Leavelle on 1 appeal from the denial of his petition under Penal Code section 1172.6. Counsel filed a brief that set forth the facts of the case. Counsel did not argue against her client but advised the court she found no issues to argue on his behalf. The procedures set forth in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, do not apply to appeals from the denial of section 1172.6 petitions. (People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 226, 227, 231 (Delgadillo).) Therefore, when appointed appellate counsel finds no viable issues, counsel must file a brief informing the court that counsel found no arguable issues and include a concise narration of facts. (Id. at p. 231.) The reviewing court must send the brief to the defendant with notice the defendant may file a supplemental brief or letter within 30 days. (Id. at pp. 231–232.) If the defendant raises issues in a supplemental brief or letter, the court must evaluate the arguments raised and issue a written opinion. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.) Leavelle has filed a supplemental brief, and we address his claims below. We have also independently reviewed the record and found no arguable issues on appeal. We affirm the postjudgment order. FACTS A complete recitation of the facts can be found in our prior nonpublished opinion, People v. Leavelle (May 21, 2003, G030574). The sole issue in this appeal is whether the trial court erred when it found Leavelle