People v. Mason CA3

Filed 8/8/23 P. v. Mason CA3 Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (San Joaquin) ----

THE PEOPLE, C091626

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. STKCRFE20080010260, v. SF110292A)

CHAUNCEY LEE MASON, OPINION ON TRANSFER

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Chauncey Lee Mason appeals the trial court’s order denying his petition for resentencing under Penal Code former section 1170.95 (now section 1172.6).1 (Statutory section citations that follow are found in the Penal Code unless

1 Defendant originally filed his petition under former section 1170.95. Effective January 1, 2022, Senate Bill No. 775 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2021, ch. 551, § 2)

1

otherwise stated.) Appointed 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.) We dismissed that appeal as abandoned and our 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 (Delgadillo). On April 7, 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 that if we did not receive a letter or brief within that 30-day period, the court may dismiss the appeal as abandoned. Defendant filed a supplemental brief arguing the Legislature did not intend to exclude an “actual perpetrator” from relief under section 1172.6. Having considered defendant’s argument, we will affirm the trial court’s order. We note that defendant’s supplemental brief also purports to address the denial of a writ of habeas corpus he allegedly filed in the trial court on March 2, 2023, and which was supposedly denied on March 17, 2023. But no such writ or denial are included in the appellate record, and defendant’s notice of appeal states only that he is appealing the court’s “Penal Code 1170.95” ruling. Accordingly, we do not address defendant’s unsupported writ claim.