People v. Clinton CA1/1

Filed 10/29/25 P. v. Clinton CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A172967 v. LATROY CLINTON, (San Francisco City & County Super. Ct. No. CR1509568) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Latroy Clinton appeals from the trial court’s order denying his petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.18.1 His appellate counsel has filed a brief raising no issues but asking for an independent review of the record to determine whether any arguable issues exist on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Defendant was notified of his right to file a supplement brief, but has not done so. Having reviewed the record and finding no arguable issues, we affirm. BACKGROUND In 1994, defendant pleaded no contest to one count of robbery (§ 212.5, subd. (b)), transportation of cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)), being a felon in possession of a firearm (former § 12021, subd. (a)) and

All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless 1

otherwise indicated.

1

carrying a loaded firearm in a vehicle (former § 12031, subd. (a)). The court sentenced defendant to three years’ probation with 121 days’ credit for time served. A year later, defendant stipulated to a probation violation, and the trial court sentenced him to the low term of three years on the transportation for sale count and concurrent sentences for the remaining three counts.2 Twenty-nine years later, defendant filed a petition pursuant to section 1170.18 requesting resentencing as to the robbery and transportation for cocaine convictions. On the resentencing form, defendant indicated he had completed his sentence and was seeking to have his felony convictions designated as misdemeanors. In June 2025, the court denied defendant’s petition, holding he was ineligible for relief under section 1170.18, subdivision (a), “based on [his] convictions.” On appeal, defendant’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Wende. The Wende procedure applies “to the first appeal as of right and is compelled by the constitutional right to counsel under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.” (People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 221 (Delgadillo).) In Delgadillo, our Supreme Court held Wende procedures do not apply to appeals from the denial of a section 1172.6 postjudgment petition for resentencing. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 224–226.) However, the court laid out applicable procedures for cases where a defendant has filed a supplemental brief. The court explained, “the Court of Appeal is required to evaluate the specific arguments presented in that brief and to issue a written opinion,” but the filing of the supplemental brief alone does not compel the