People v. Tran CA4/3

Filed 7/10/23 P. v. Tran CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G061695

v. (Super. Ct. No. 07WF2294)

HUY TRONG TRAN, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, David A. Hoffer, Judge. Affirmed. Allen G. Weinberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant Huy Trong Tran filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to former 1 Penal Code section 1170.95. At the prima facie hearing on the petition, the trial court found Tran ineligible for relief as a matter of law and denied the petition. Appointed appellate counsel for Tran filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), setting forth the facts of the case. Acknowledging Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), appellate counsel has asked this court to review the record “unfettered by [appellate] counsel’s prior thought processes.” While this appeal was pending, the California Supreme Court decided People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 226 (Delgadillo) and concluded “the procedures set out in Anders and Wende do not apply to an appeal from the denial of postconviction relief.” However, the court in Delgadillo set forth “a few basic procedures” Courts of Appeal should follow when considering an appeal from the denial of a section 1172.6 petition where appointed counsel has found no arguable issues to be pursued. (Delgadillo, supra, at pp. 231-232.) In such instances, the defendant must be given proper notice and provided an opportunity to file a supplemental letter or brief, which Tran did. Under Delgadillo, the Court of Appeal may also conduct its own independent review of the record in an exercise of its discretion. (Ibid.) Exercising our discretion, we have examined the entire record as well as Tran’s supplemental brief and find no reasonably arguable issue. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.) We therefore affirm.