Filed 6/13/23 P. Walden CA3 Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C093920

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 12F04876)

v. OPINION ON TRANSFER

PAUL WALDEN,

Defendant and Appellant.

This appeal arises from the trial court’s denial of defendant Paul Walden’s petition for resentencing under former Penal Code section 1172.6. (Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.) Defendant filed his original petition under former section 1170.95, however, the Legislature amended section 1170.95 effective January 1, 2022 and subsequently renumbered section 1170.95 to section 1172.6, without substantive change. (Stats. 2021, ch. 551; Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) For clarity, we refer to the statute as section 1172.6. In his original appeal, we appointed counsel to represent defendant and his appointed counsel asked this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v.Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was informed of his right to file a supplemental brief but did not file one and we dismissed that appeal.

1 The Supreme Court granted defendant’s petition for review and transferred this case back to us with directions to vacate our prior decision and reconsider this case in light of People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). We vacated our decision. On April 18, 2023, we notified defendant: 1) counsel had filed a brief indicating no arguable issues had been identified by counsel; 2) as a case arising from an order denying postconviction relief, defendant was not entitled to counsel or to an ind ependent review of the record; and 3) in accordance with the procedures set forth in Delgadillo, defendant had 30 days in which to file a supplemental brief or letter raising any argument he wanted this court to consider. In addition, we notified defendant if we did not receive a letter or brief within that 30-day period, the court 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.)

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

, HULL, Acting P. J.

We concur:

,

MAURO, J.

,

RENNER, J.

2