People v. Mitchell CA3

Filed 12/29/23 P. v. Mitchell CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C098989

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 08F05934)

v.

RONALD MITCHELL,

Defendant and Appellant.

On February 5, 2010, a jury found defendant Ronald Mitchell guilty of the first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187)1 of one victim and attempted murder of a second victim (§ 664/187). The jury also found true the special allegations that he committed the murder while lying in wait (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(15)), that he had personally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury or death (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)) in both the murder

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

and attempted murder, and that the attempted murder was willful, deliberate, and premeditated. The trial court sentenced Mitchell to an aggregate prison sentence of life without the possibility of parole plus 64 years to life. (People v. Mitchell (Dec. 2, 2011, C064438) [nonpub. opn.].) We upheld this judgment in an unpublished decision issued in 2011. (Ibid.) On October 17, 2022, Mitchell filed a petition for resentencing under former section 1170.95 (now section 1172.6).2 Following the appointment of counsel and briefing by the parties, the trial court held a prima facie hearing wherein the court indicated its intention not to issue an order to show cause because Mitchell was convicted as the actual killer. The next day, the trial court issued a written ruling finding Mitchell was the actual killer and thus ineligible for relief. Accordingly, the trial court denied his petition. Defendant timely appealed. On October 11, 2023, appellate counsel filed a brief raising no arguable issues under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, but requesting we exercise our discretion to review the entire record for arguable issues on appeal. That same day, appellate counsel wrote Mitchell, explaining he would be filing a Delgadillo brief, and if he failed to file a propria persona supplemental brief, his appeal would likely be dismissed. Also on October 11, 2023, this court sent a letter notifying Mitchell: (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, Mitchell 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, Mitchell had 30 days to file a supplemental brief or letter raising any argument he wanted this court to