People v. Gholar CA3

Filed 7/24/23 P. v. Gholar CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C097598

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 08F09783)

v.

JULES ANTHONY GHOLAR,

Defendant and Appellant.

On May 5, 2010, a jury found defendant Jules Anthony Gholar guilty of second degree murder and found true the special allegation that he had personally discharged a firearm causing death. The trial court sentenced defendant to 15 years to life for the murder plus 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement. We upheld this judgment in an unpublished decision issued in 2011. (People v. Gholar (Aug. 30, 2011, C065396) [nonpub. opn.].)

1

On May 19, 2022, defendant filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code1 section 1172.6.2 Following the appointment of counsel and briefing by the parties, the trial court found defendant had not made a prima facie showing entitling him to relief and dismissed his petition. Defendant timely appealed. Thereafter, appellate counsel filed a brief raising no arguable issues under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.App.5th 216, but requesting we exercise our discretion to review the entire record for arguable issues on appeal. On February 23, 2023, and April 13, 2023, appellate counsel wrote defendant, explaining he would be filing a Delgadillo brief and if defendant failed to file a propria persona supplemental brief, his appeal would likely be dismissed. On April 18, 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. In addition, we reiterated if this court did not receive a letter or brief within that 30-day period, his appeal may be dismissed as abandoned. On May 22, 2023, defendant filed a supplemental brief that we understood to challenge: (1) police techniques utilized in interviewing an individual who ultimately implicated defendant in the murder; (2) the admission of the testimony of the victim’s