People v. Vinson CA3

Filed 5/11/23 P. v. Vinson CA3 Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C096242

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 17FE006798)

v. OPINION ON TRANSFER TERIS VINSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

This appeal arises from the trial court’s denial of defendant Teris Vinson’s petition for resentencing under Penal Code former section 1170.95.1 2 We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that set forth the relevant procedural history of the case and asked this court to review the record and determine whether any arguable issues on appeal exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.)

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 The Legislature amended section 1170.95 effective January 1, 2022, under Senate Bill No. 775 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2021, ch. 551). Further, effective June 30, 2022, the Legislature renumbered section 1170.95 to section 1172.6 without substantive change. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.)

1

We dismissed that appeal and the Supreme Court granted defendant’s petition for review and transferred the case back to us with directions to vacate our prior decision and reconsider the matter in light of People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216. We vacated our decision. Counsel filed a brief on transfer raising no arguable issues under Delgadillo and requests that we exercise our discretion to review the entire record for arguable issues on appeal or comply with the notice procedures approved in Delgadillo. On March 28, 2023, we notified defendant that (1) counsel had filed a brief indicating that no arguable issues had been identified by counsel; (2) as a case arising from an order denying postconviction relief, defendant was not entitled to counsel or to an independent review of the record; and (3) in accordance with the procedures set forth in Delgadillo, defendant had 30 days in which to file a supplemental brief or letter raising any argument he wanted this court to consider. In addition, we notified defendant if we did not receive a letter or brief within that 30-day period, the court may dismiss the appeal as abandoned. More than 30 days have elapsed and we have received no communication from defendant. We consider defendant’s appeal abandoned and order it dismissed. (People v. Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.) DISPOSITION The appeal is dismissed.