People v. White CA5

• Court: California Court of Appeal
• Decided: April 26, 2023
• Docket: F085029
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Filed 4/26/23 P. v. White CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE, F085029 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Merced Super. Ct. v. No. 15CR-00084C)

WILLIAM ALLEN WHITE, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Merced County. Ronald W. Hansen, Judge. (Retired Judge of the Merced Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Christine Vento, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Hill, P. J., Detjen, J. and Smith, J. In 2017, appellant and defendant William White (appellant) was convicted of first degree murder, first degree burglary, and two counts of home invasion robbery in concert with firearm enhancements. He was sentenced to an aggregate third strike term of 137 years to life plus a determinate term of 96 years. In his direct appeal, this court corrected his sentence, remanded for the trial court to determine whether to resentence on certain enhancements, and otherwise affirmed his convictions.1 On remand, the trial court declined to resentence on the enhancements. In 2022, appellant filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.6.2 The trial court found appellant’s petition stated a prima facie case, issued an order to show cause, conducted an evidentiary hearing, and denied relief on the merits. On appeal, appellant’s counsel filed a brief with this court pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, which summarized the facts and procedural history with citations to the record, raised no issues, and asked this court to independently review the record. On January 20, 2023, this court sent an order to appellant stating his appellate counsel had filed a brief under Wende that indicated no arguable issues had been identified for appeal; previously, when an appellant filed an appeal from the denial of a section 1172.6 petition, and counsel filed a Wende brief, this court performed an independent review of the record to determine whether any error occurred; the California

On January 11, 2023, this court granted appellant’s request to take judicial notice 1 of the record and nonpublished opinion in People v. White (Nov. 17, 2020) F076682. (Evid. Code, § 459, subds. (a), (c); § 452, subd. (d)(1).) 2 All further statutory citations are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. Appellant filed his petition under former section 1170.95, which was amended effective January 1, 2022, and then renumbered as section 1172.6 without further substantive changes on June 30, 2022. (People v. Saibu (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 709, 714; Stats. 2022, ch. 58 (Assem. Bill. 200), § 10, eff. June 30, 2022.) As such, we refer to the subject statute by its current number throughout this opinion.

2. Supreme Court determined in People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo) that independent Wende review is not required for appeals from the denial of section 1172.6 petitions; in accordance with the procedures set forth in Delgadillo, appellant had 30 days in which to file a supplemental brief or letter raising any arguable issues he wanted this court to consider; and if we did not receive a letter or brief within that 30-day period, this court may dismiss the appeal as abandoned. Since more than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from appellant, we consider his appeal abandoned and order dismissal. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.) DISPOSITION The appeal is dismissed.

3.