P. v. Davidson CA5
Appointed counsel for defendant Danon Corey Davidson asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed and we received no communication from defendant. We grant counsel’s request that we exercise our discretion to deem defendant’s motion below as a petition for writ of mandate and review its denial. (See People v. Picklesimer (2010) 48 Cal.4th 330, 340 [“Assuming the pleading that has been filed meets or can be amended to meet the prerequisites for a petition for writ of mandate, a court in its discretion may treat a motion or a petition for a different writ as a mislabeled petition for writ of mandate.”].) Finding no arguable error, we affirm.
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case.
Comments on P. v. Davidson CA5