People v. Carson CA4/2
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Bernardino County · No. FSB12135
- Trial judge
- Ronald M. Christianson (retired judge)
- Outcome
- dismissed — Dismissed.
- Area
- criminal
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
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Filed 2/22/24 P. v. Carson CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Delgadillo S266305 · 2022-12-19