People v. Yates CA4/2

• Court: California Court of Appeal
• Decided: January 15, 2025
• Docket: E083614
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Filed 1/15/25 P. v. Yates 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E083614

v. (Super.Ct.No. FVA018252)

ANTHONY DAJUAN YATES, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Jon D. Ferguson,

Judge. Dismissed.

Marcia R. Clark, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

On December 10, 2003, a jury found defendant and appellant Anthony Dajuan

Yates guilty of voluntary manslaughter (Pen. Code, § 192, subd. (a), count 1).1 The jury

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.

1 additionally found true allegations that in his commission of the offense, defendant

discharged a handgun proximately causing death (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)), discharged a

handgun (§ 12022.53, subd. (c)), and used a handgun (§§ 12022.5, subd. (a)(1) &

12022.53, subd. (b)). The court sentenced defendant to prison for 21 years.2 (Yates,

supra, E036068.)

Defendant appealed. This court affirmed the judgment with directions for the trial

court to strike its order that defendant pay restitution to the Victim Compensation Board.

(Yates, supra, E036068.)

On December 4, 2023, defendant filed a motion for resentencing pursuant to

Senate Bill Nos. 1310, 775, 620, 1437 (§ 1172.6); Assembly Bill Nos. 1310 and 2942;

former section 1170, subdivision (d) (now § 1172.1, subd. (a)(1)); and section 1385.

At a hearing on March 29, 2024, at which defendant was represented by counsel,

the court denied defendant’s section 1172.6 motion finding that a court’s previous

unappealed denial of a prior motion was res judicata. The court declined to rule on

defendant’s request for resentencing pursuant to section 1172.1, subdivision (c).

(§ 1172.1, subd. (c) [“A defendant is not entitled to file a petition seeking relief from the

court under this section. If a defendant requests consideration for relief under this

section, the court is not required to respond.”])

2 We take judicial notice of this court’s unpublished opinion in People v. Yates (Sep. 16, 2005, E036068) (Yates), from defendant’s appeal of the judgment. (Evid. Code, § 459.)

2 Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14

Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo), setting forth a statement of the case and requesting that we

independently review the record for error.

We gave defendant the opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief. We

noted that if he did not do so, we could dismiss the appeal; nevertheless, he has not filed

one. Under these circumstances, we have no obligation to independently review the

record for error. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 224-231.) Rather, we dismiss the

appeal. (Id. at pp. 231-232.)

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

McKINSTER Acting P. J.

We concur:

CODRINGTON J.

RAPHAEL J.