Filed 7/15/26 P. v. Mayes 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
(San Joaquin)
THE PEOPLE, C103588
Plaintiff and Respondent,
(Super. Ct. Nos. STK-CR-FE-
v. 2011-0007803, SF119150A)
STEDVIENO MAYES,
Defendant and Appellant.
Defendant Stedvieno Mayes appeals from a postconviction order denying his
resentencing petition under Penal Code section 1172.6.1 Appellate counsel filed a brief
raising no arguable issues under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v.
Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo) asking this court to conduct an
independent review of the record. Defendant filed a supplemental brief. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
As relevant here, in 2013 a jury found defendant guilty of several crimes,
including first degree murder. (People v. Mayes (June 28, 2021, C090622) [nonpub.
1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
1
opn.].)2 On direct appeal, we modified the judgment to stay the sentence on his robbery
conviction under section 654, affirmed the remainder of the judgment, and remanded for
resentencing. (People v. Mayes, supra, C073853.)
In 2019, defendant filed a petition under what is now section 1172.6 to have his
murder conviction vacated. (People v. Mayes, supra, C090622.) The trial court denied
the petition without first appointing counsel and giving the parties an opportunity to file
additional briefing. (Ibid.) We reversed the order denying the petition and remanded for
the court to appoint counsel for defendant and proceed in accordance with the
requirements of section 1172.6. (People v. Mayes, supra, C090622.)
On remand, the trial court held a hearing and again denied the resentencing
petition, finding that defendant acted with reckless indifference to human life. (People v.
Mayes, supra, C097314.) We concluded there was insufficient evidence to support that
finding. (Ibid.) We reversed the order denying the petition and remanded for the court to
vacate defendant’s murder conviction and resentence him on his remaining convictions.
(Ibid.)
In 2024, the trial court vacated defendant’s murder conviction and resentenced
defendant. (People v. Mayes, supra, C100806.) On appeal, defendant argued the court
erred in failing to dismiss one of his firearm enhancements. (Ibid.) We rejected this
argument and affirmed the judgment. (Ibid.)
2 On the court’s own motion, we take judicial notice of this court’s unpublished
opinions in defendant’s appeals of the original judgment (People v. Mayes (July 7, 2015,
C073853) [nonpub. opn.]), the summary denial of defendant’s resentencing petition
(People v. Mayes, supra, C090622), the order denying the resentencing petition after
hearing (People v. Mayes (Oct. 20, 2023, C097314) [nonpub. opn.]), and the resentencing
(People v. Mayes (Dec. 31, 2024, C100806) [nonpub. opn.]). (Evid. Code, §§ 451, subd.
(a), 452, subd. (d), 459, subd. (a).)
2
In 2025, defendant filed another section 1172.6. petition for resentencing. The
trial court denied the petition in a written order, stating that defendant’s murder
conviction had already been vacated.
Defendant timely appealed.
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; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) 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 filed a supplemental brief.
In Wende, 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.)
3
We decline to conduct an independent review of the record. In his one-page
supplemental brief, defendant says he has “the potential for relief under section 1172.6”
pertaining to the “seriousness [of] my charges and allegations is a significant interest.”
From this conclusory assertion, we discern no legal argument related to the trial court’s
denial of his second section 1172.6 petition. Defendant further states: “I would also like
to know how the issue with my restitution was missed, the court … claims I owe $280
restitution … after court it’s $2,240? That strange, I must be still dreaming! lol smh!
But anyways thank you for your time; God Bless!” This statement does not pertain to the
legal reason why the court denied defendant’s section 1172.6 petition—namely, that
defendant’s murder conviction had already been vacated. Accordingly, defendant’s
supplemental brief does not establish that the court erred in denying his second section
1172.6 petition.
DISPOSITION
The order denying defendant’s section 1172.6 petition is affirmed.
/s/
WISEMAN, J.
We concur:
/s/
ROBIE, Acting P. J.
/s/
MESIWALA, J.
Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, assigned by
the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
4