People v. Barron CA3

Filed 7/17/23 P. v. Barron CA3 Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C093046

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 06F06656)

v. OPINION ON TRANSFER

ISAIAH BARRON,

Defendant and Appellant.

On August 17, 2009, a jury found defendant Isaiah Barron1 guilty of conspiracy to commit murder, as well as first degree murder committed for financial gain and while lying in wait. The jury also found true the special allegation that defendant was involved in an offense in which a principal was armed. (People v. Battle (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th

1 While the original abstract of judgment lists defendant’s name as “Isaiah Dupree Barron,” this court’s prior orders, the petition for review by our Supreme Court, and our high court’s orders list defendant’s name as “Isaiah Barron”; we use the latter name in this opinion for consistency.

1

50, 58.) The trial court sentenced defendant to 25 years to life without the possibility of parole for the murder, plus one year for the arming finding. The trial court stayed the sentence imposed for the conspiracy pursuant to Penal Code2 section 654. We upheld these convictions on appeal. (Id. at p. 56.) On February 27, 2019, defendant filed a form petition for resentencing under section 1172.6.3 The trial court appointed counsel, and the parties submitted briefing. The trial court denied defendant’s petition at the prima facie stage in a written order on September 29, 2020. Defendant timely appealed. Defendant’s counsel filed a no-issue brief under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the entire record for arguable issues on appeal. Thereafter, on May 7, 2021, this court, on its own motion, dismissed defendant’s appeal as abandoned. Defendant petitioned our Supreme Court for review; our high court has now directed us to vacate our prior decision and reconsider the matter in light of People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216. On March 28, 2023, this court sent a letter notifying defendant: (1) his counsel filed an appellate brief stating his review of the record did not identify any arguable issues; (2) as a case arising from an order denying postconviction relief, defendant was not constitutionally 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 to file a supplemental brief or letter raising any argument he wanted this court to consider.