People v. Mitchell CA2/6

Filed 6/17/24 P. v. Mitchell CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B329199 (Super. Ct. No. SM105565) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Santa Barbara County)

v.

GREGORY DEAN MITCHELL,

Defendant and Appellant.

Gregory Dean Mitchell appeals from two postjudgment orders. The first appeal is from the trial court’s order denying appellant’s motion to preserve evidence for purposes of a possible youth offender parole hearing. (Pen. Code, §§ 1203.01, 3051; In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439.)1 The second appeal is from the

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

trial court’s order denying appellant’s petition for resentencing. (§ 1172.6.) We affirm in part and dismiss in part.2 Procedural Background3 In 1999, a jury convicted appellant of murder (§ 187, subd. (a)), robbery (§ 211), burglary (§ 459), and assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)). The jury also found true the special circumstance allegations that the murder was committed during a robbery and a burglary. (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17).) Appellant was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole (LWOP). In 2023, appellant filed a motion in propria persona requesting a hearing to preserve evidence for a possible youth offender parole hearing pursuant to section 3051. The trial court denied the motion because appellant was 18 years old at the time of the controlling offense, was sentenced to LWOP, and was therefore statutorily ineligible for a youth offender parole hearing. (§ 3051, subds. (b)(4), (h).)

2 Appellant did not provide briefing as to the section 1172.6 appeal. We notified appellant’s counsel and invited additional briefing. After further review of the record, counsel declined to submit additional briefing addressing the section 1172.6 appeal. We thus deem the appeal abandoned and dismiss it. (See People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 793 [if a party fails to provide legal argument and citations to authority on a point, “‘the court may treat it as waived, and pass it without consideration’”]; In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994 [court may deem appeal abandoned where appellant does not raise claims of reversible error or other defect or present argument and authority on each point made].)