People v. Carson CA4/2

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal
DecidedFebruary 22, 2024
DocketE082495
StatusUnpublished

This text of People v. Carson CA4/2 (People v. Carson CA4/2) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People v. Carson CA4/2, (Cal. Ct. App. 2024).

Opinion

Filed 2/22/24 P. v. Carson CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, E082495

v. (Super.Ct.No. FSB12135)

ROBERT CARSON, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Ronald M.

Christianson, Judge. (Retired Judge of the San Bernardino Super. Ct. assigned by the

Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Dismissed.

Sheila O’Connor, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

1 INTRODUCTION

Defendant Robert Carson appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for

resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6. Counsel filed a brief raising no arguable

issues under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo).

On December 12, 2023, we notified defendant: (1) counsel filed a brief indicating

no arguable issues had been identified; (2) as a case arising from an order denying

postconviction relief, this court was not required to conduct an independent review of the

record, but we could do so in our discretion; and (3) in accordance with the procedures

set forth in Delgadillo, he had 30 days in which to file a supplemental brief raising any

argument he wanted this court to consider. We also notified defendant that if we did not

receive a brief within that 30-day period, we may dismiss the appeal as abandoned. More

than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant.

We consider defendant’s appeal abandoned and order the appeal dismissed.

(Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.)

2 DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

FIELDS J. We concur:

MILLER Acting P. J.

CODRINGTON J.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People v. Delgadillo
521 P.3d 360 (California Supreme Court, 2022)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
People v. Carson CA4/2, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-carson-ca42-calctapp-2024.