Filed 10/24/23 P. v. Yang CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, Plaintiff and Respondent, C098083 v. (Super. Ct. No. 14F04073) JOHN YANG, Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant John Yang appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for resentencing under Penal Code former section 1170.95 (now Penal Code section 1172.6).1 Appellate counsel filed a brief raising no arguable issues under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo) and asked that we exercise our discretion to review the entire record for arguable issues on appeal.

In a letter dated June 26, 2023, appellate counsel wrote defendant, explaining he would be filing a Delgadillo brief and that defendant may file a supplemental brief or letter within 30 days of the filing of the Delgadillo brief. In a second letter,

1 Effective June 30, 2022, the Legislature renumbered Penal Code former section 1170.95 as section 1172.6 without substantive changes. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) dated July 7, 2023, counsel further notified defendant that if defendant failed to file a supplemental brief, his appeal would likely be dismissed as abandoned. On July 10, 2023, this court sent a letter notifying defendant: (1) his counsel filed an appellate brief stating his review of the record did not identify any arguable issues; (2) as a case arising from an order denying postconviction relief, defendant was not constitutionally entitled to counsel or to an independent review of the record; and (3) in accordance with the procedures set forth in Delgadillo, defendant had 30 days to file a supplemental brief or letter raising any argument he wanted this court to consider. In addition, we notified defendant that if this court did not receive a letter or brief within that 30-day period, the court may dismiss his appeal as abandoned. More than 30 days elapsed and we 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.

/S/ MAURO, J.

We concur:

/S/ ROBIE, Acting P. J.

/S/ KRAUSE, J.