Filed 2/23/22 P. v. Contreras CA2/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
OSVALDO CONTRERAS,
Defendant and Appellant.
| B313741
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA066817) |
THE COURT:
On May 15, 2002, Osvaldo Contreras (appellant), was convicted of first degree murder in violation of Penal Code section 187, subdivision (a) (count 1), arson of property in violation of Penal Code section 451, subdivision (d) (count 2) and unlawful driving and taking of a vehicle, in violation of Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a) (count 3). He was sentenced to 25 years to life state prison as to count 1, two years as to count 2, and eight months as to count 3. The sentences were consecutive.
On October 23, 2020, appellant filed a petition pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95 asking the trial court to vacate his murder conviction and resentence him. The trial court appointed counsel to represent appellant. Subsequently, it held a prima facie review hearing under Penal Code section 1170.95, subdivision (c), concluded that appellant was ineligible for relief, and denied appellant’s petition.
This appeal followed.
Appointed counsel filed a brief requesting that we conduct an independent review of the record pursuant to the procedure in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441–442. She did not raise any issues for us to review. On December 3, 2021, we sent a letter to appellant indicating that appointed counsel filed a brief that raised no issues and informing appellant that he had 30 days to file a supplemental brief. No supplemental brief has been filed, and 30 days has expired.
Where appointed counsel files a brief that does not raise any issues in an appeal seeking postjudgment relief, the appellate court is not required to independently review the record for grounds to reverse. (People v. Cole (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 1023, 1039–1040, review granted Oct. 14, 2020, S264278; see People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496, 503.) We only review the issues raised in a supplemental brief, if one is filed. (People v. Cole, supra, at p. 1039.)
In the absence of a supplemental brief raising issues for us to review, we exercise our discretion to dismiss this appeal as abandoned. (People v. Cole, supra, 52 Cal.App.5th at p. 1040; People v. Scott (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 1127, 1135, review granted, Mar. 17, 2021, S266853; People v. Figueras (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 108, 111, review granted, May 12, 2021, S267870; but see People v. Flores (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 266, 269 [when appointed counsel files a brief pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 in an appeal from a summary denial of a Penal Code section 1170.95 petition, a Court of Appeal is not required to independently review the entire record, but it can and should do so in the interests of justice]; People v. Gallo (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 594, 598 [same]; People v. Allison (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 449, 456 [same].)
The appeal is dismissed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
____________________________________________________________
LUI, P. J. ASHMANN-GERST, J. HOFFSTADT, J.
