People v. Quillin CA3

Filed 10/11/23 P. v. Quillin CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Yolo) ----

THE PEOPLE, C097612

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CR20113853)

v.

CHARLES CAMERON QUILLIN,

Defendant and Appellant.

On April 19, 2012, a jury found defendant Charles Cameron Quillin guilty of murder. (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a).) The jury also found true allegations that, during the commission of the murder, defendant personally used a firearm causing great bodily injury. (Id., § 12022.53.) The trial court subsequently sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of 50 years to life in state prison: 25 years to life for murder, plus 25 years to life for the firearm use enhancement.

1

On July 28, 2022, defendant filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.61 with the Yolo County Superior Court. Following the appointment of counsel, briefing, and argument, the trial court denied the petition without issuing an order to show cause. Defendant timely appealed. On July 20, 2023, defendant’s appellate counsel filed a brief raising no arguable issues under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 and requesting we exercise our discretion to review the entire record for arguable issues on appeal. Counsel also 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. Also, on July 24, 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 advised defendant that if the court did not receive a letter brief within that period, “the court may dismiss the appeal as abandoned.” Defendant did not file a supplemental brief within the 30 days following the Delgadillo notice. We consider defendant’s appeal abandoned and order the appeal dismissed. (People v. Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.)