People v. Veaver CA3
Filed 5/14/14 P. v. Veaver CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COPY
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Butte) ----
THE PEOPLE, C073979
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CM027627)
v.
WILLIAM FRANKLIN VEAVER,
Defendant and Appellant.
Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), defendant William Franklin Veaver has asked us to review the record for arguable issues in this appeal from the denial of his motion to vacate the judgment pursuant to Penal Code section 1473.6,1 which allows a noncustodial defendant to move to vacate a judgment of conviction due to
1 Further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
1
newly discovered evidence under specified circumstances. Because we find that defendant is not entitled to Wende review, we dismiss the appeal as abandoned.
BACKGROUND
On April 17, 2008, pursuant to a negotiated disposition, defendant pleaded no contest to sexual battery (§ 243.4, subd. (a)) with the understanding that related counts and allegations would be dismissed. Defendant was sentenced to prison for three years. On March 1, 2013, defendant filed a motion to vacate his conviction pursuant to section 1473.6. The superior court denied the motion by written order. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal from this order. We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel advised defendant of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)