People v. Wilson CA3

Filed 7/24/25 P. v. Wilson CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C101754

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 13F05242 )

v.

GORDON WILSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Gordon Wilson appeals from the trial court’s order dismissing his request for recall and resentencing under Penal Code1 section 1172.1. His appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). Defendant filed a supplemental brief arguing that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance at his original trial, his habeas petitions in the federal court were erroneously denied, and that he has an end-stage disease that compels his resentencing. We shall dismiss the appeal.

1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

I. BACKGROUND In 2014, a jury found defendant guilty of 13 counts of lewd and lascivious acts on a minor who was seven or eight years old. (§ 288, subd. (a).) The trial court sentenced defendant to 27 years in state prison. In 2024, defendant filed a petition seeking resentencing under section 1170.1. He raised a host of issues in that petition: ineffective assistance of trial counsel, diminished physical condition and age, being sentenced for multiple convictions for a single course of conduct, sentencing in violation of the Sixth Amendment, glaring errors in the transcript, and counsel’s failure to object to amounts of fines. In response to the petition, the trial court entered the following order: “The petition of defendant GORDON WILSON seeking recall of sentence and resentencing pursuant to California Penal Code § 1172.1[, subdivision] (a), is DISMISSED pursuant to . . . § 1172.1[, subdivision] (c) as a defendant is not entitled to file a petition seeking relief from the court under that section. [¶] Relief under . . . § 1172.1[, subdivision] (a) is only available upon the timely sua sponte motion of the court with jurisdiction in the case, or upon the recommendation of the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation or the Board of Parole Hearings in the case of a defendant incarcerated in state prison, the county correctional administrator in the case of a defendant incarcerated in county jail, the district attorney of the county in which the defendant was sentenced, or the Attorney General if the Department of Justice originally prosecuted the case. The Court has not received a recommendation for recall and resentencing in the above- referenced action from an appropriate authorized agency. The Court, has not, and presently declines to, make its own motion for recall and resentencing in the action.” Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. II. DISCUSSION In People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, our Supreme Court held that “Courts of Appeal must conduct a review of the entire record whenever appointed counsel submits a