People v. Love CA4/3

Filed 2/22/24 P. v. Love CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G062382

v. (Super. Ct. No. RIF122615)

BOBBY LEON LOVE III, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Riverside County, John D. Molloy, Judge. Affirmed. Marcia R. Clark, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Counsel was appointed to represent Bobby Leon Love III on appeal from the trial court’s denial of his petition for resentencing based on Penal Code section 1 1172.6. Counsel did not argue against her client but advised the court she found no issues to argue on his behalf. The procedures set forth in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, do not apply to appeals from the denial of section 1172.6 petitions. (People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 226, 231.) Therefore, when appointed appellate counsel finds no viable issues, counsel should file a brief informing the court that counsel found no arguable issues and include a concise narration of facts. (Id. at p. 231.) The reviewing court should send the brief to the defendant with notice the defendant may file a supplemental brief or letter within 30 days, and if the defendant does not, the court may dismiss the appeal. (Id. at pp. 231- 232.) While no review of the record is compelled, the court retains discretion to independently review the record. (Id. at p. 232.) Counsel requested this court exercise its discretion to conduct an independent review, which we have. Counsel identified two issues she considered to assist the court in conducting a discretionary independent review of the record: (1) “Did the trial court err in denying [Love’s] petition for resentencing pursuant to section 1172.6?[; and (2)] Did the trial court [prejudicially] err in relying solely on the prosecutor’s representation that the jury instructions showed [Love] was ineligible for relief without conducting an independent review of the court file?” (Boldface and some capitalization omitted.)