People v. Langston CA4/2

California Court of Appeal Apr 6, 2023 No. E080335Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court dismissed the defendant's appeal as abandoned because he failed to file a supplemental brief after being notified that his counsel found no arguable issues, and the court independently determined the appeal lacked merit.

Issues

Whether the defendant is entitled to resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75 for a sentence that does not include a prior prison term enhancement.
Whether the appeal should be dismissed as abandoned following the defendant's failure to file a supplemental brief after being notified of the lack of arguable issues.

Disposition. Dismissed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“If the defendant does not file a supplemental brief or letter, the Court of Appeal may dismiss the appeal as abandoned.”

“We dismiss the appeal as abandoned.”

Filed 4/6/23 P. v. Langston CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE, E080335 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super.Ct.No. 16CR027001) v. OPINION STANLEY MEADOW LANGSTON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. J. David Mazurek,

Judge. Dismissed.

Lizabeth Weis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In 2019, Stanley Meadow Langston pled guilty to attempted murder (Pen. Code,

§§ 664/187, subd. (a))1 and admitted he personally used a firearm. (§ 12022.53,

1 Unlabeled statutory citations refer to the Penal Code.

subd. (b).) In August 2022 he filed a motion seeking resentencing under

section 1172.75,2 which the trial court denied. Langston appealed.

We appointed counsel to represent Langston on appeal, and counsel has filed a

brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v.

California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 setting forth a statement of the case and a summary of the

facts and asking us to conduct an independent review of the record.

When appealing from a postconviction order a defendant does not have a

People v. Langston CA4/2

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISPOSITION

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

RAMIREZ P. J.

CODRINGTON J.

AI Brief