Full Opinion

Filed 10/21/26 P. v. Wallace CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Yuba) THE PEOPLE, C103328 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. v. CRF190093702) VIVION DEANDRE WALLACE, Defendant and Appellant. Defendant Vivion Deandre Wallace appeals from a postconviction order denying his motion for recall of sentence and resentencing. Appellate counsel filed a brief raising no arguable issues under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo) and asking this court to exercise its discretion to conduct an independent review of the record. Defendant filed a supplemental brief. We affirm. BACKGROUND In 2019, defendant fired multiple gunshots from a motor vehicle into another motor vehicle, resulting in a person’s death. Defendant pled guilty to one count of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a); further statutory references are to this code) and two counts of deliberate and premeditated attempted murder (§§ 187, subd. (a), 664), as to two other victims. Defendant also admitted that he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (c)) as to the murder and that he personally used 1 a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)) as to one of the attempted murder convictions. The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of 62 years to life. In 2023, defendant filed a petition pursuant to section 1172.6, asserting he could no longer be convicted of murder or attempted murder due to statutory changes to murder liability. The trial court denied the petition because defendant was the actual killer and had not been convicted under the natural and probable consequences doctrine. Later in 2023, defendant filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus requesting that the trial court strike or dismiss one or both of his firearm enhancements pursuant to section 1385. The trial court denied the petition. In 2024, defendant filed a “motion to: recall sentence and conviction, based on a lack of sufficient evidence to support probable cause, for three charges and enhancements pursuant to AB2942, SB 775-PC 1172.6, AB600, SB 1393, and AB1540.” (Capitalization omitted.) The motion asserted, among other things, that the Yuba County Sheriff’s Department conspired to arrest or kill him due to his past gang affiliation; that he was innocent; and that he should receive a resentencing. The trial court denied the motion in a written order, stating: “Defendant’s motion [is] an unintelligible conglomeration of arguments from previous motions and writs that have been already denied. However, Defendant cited Assembly Bill No. 600 in his heading. [¶] This Court declines to recall the sentence pursuant to Assembly Bill No. 600, which is set forth in Penal Code section 1172.1.” Defendant timely appeals. DISCUSSION Appellate counsel asks this court to conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 231-232.) Defendant was advised by counsel and this court of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days from the date the opening brief was filed. Defendant has filed a supplemental brief. 2 In People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, our Supreme Court held that “Courts of Appeal must conduct a review of the entire record whenever appointed counsel submits a brief on direct appeal which raises no specific issues or describes the appeal as frivolous.” (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 221.) The Wende procedure applies “to the first appeal as of right and is compelled by the constitutional right to counsel under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.” (Ibid.) In Delgadillo, our Supreme Court considered whether the Wende process applies to a trial court’s order denying a petition for postconviction relief under section 1172.6 and concluded it is not required. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 221-222.) The Supreme Court laid out applicable procedures for such cases, explaining that when a defendant files a supplemental brief, “the Court of Appeal is required to evaluate the specific arguments presented in that brief and to issue a written opinion.” (Id. at p. 232.) But the filing of a supplemental brief does not compel the court to independently review the entire record to identify unraised issues, though it may exercise its discretion to do so. (Ibid.) Delgadillo addressed the application of Wende’s review procedures in the specific context of a postconviction relief order under section 1172.6. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 231, fn. 5 [“[i]n this case, we are not deciding Wende’s application to other postconviction contexts, which may present different considerations”].) Here, because defendant invoked numerous statutes in his request for resentencing, the postconviction order technically extends to statutes other than section 1172.6. Nonetheless, the same principles articulated in Delgadillo may apply, given that this was not defendant’s first appeal of right. Following Delgadillo’s guidance, we consider the arguments defendant raises in his supplemental brief. In his supplemental brief, defendant states that his trial attorney advised him that accepting the plea agreement was his best option because he could not win at trial. Defendant also claims he was taking prescribed psychiatric medication when he entered 3 his plea; that the medication affected his ability to think; and that his attorney advised him not to tell the court how the medication was affecting his mental state. He requests that this court consider whether his trial attorney’s advice was proper; whether his medication affected his ability to waive his rights or enter into a plea agreement; whether his trial attorney adequately investigated and evaluated the evidence and defendant’s potential defenses; and whether he received effective assistance of counsel. Defendant’s supplemental brief fails to raise any legal argument as to why the trial court erred in denying defendant’s postconviction motion for recall of sentence and resentencing. So defendant fails to establish that the court erred in denying his motion. DISPOSITION The order denying defendant’s motion for recall of sentence and resentencing is affirmed. /s/ MESIWALA, J. We concur: /s/ RENNER, Acting P. J. /s/ KRAUSE, J. 4