Wende brief in California

2025Appellant was not entitled to appointment of substitute counsel, and an appellate attorney does not commit ineffective assistance by filing a Wende brief because “the appellate court … review[s] the entire record in order to determine whether there [is] any arguable issue.” (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 118 .) A. Motion to Withdraw Appellant did not file another letter brief, but we will review the denial of his motion to withdraw his plea to the extent he sought to assert that issue in his letter. 2 On October 3, 2024, this court granted appellant’s motion to construe the notice of

2025An appellate attorney does not commit ineffective assistance by filing a Wende brief because “the appellate court … review[s] the entire record to determine whether there is any arguable issue.” (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 118 .) II.

2022(See generally Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529, 544, fn. 7 [“The court may, of course, find it appropriate to retain the appeal.”]; see also People v. Flores (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 266 , 269 [when appointed counsel files a Wende brief in an appeal from denial of a former section 1170.95 petition, appellate court is not required to independently review the entire record, but can do so in the interests of justice].) In this case, we exercise that discretion to conduct an independent review of the record, where counsel has already undertaken to comply with 7 Wende requirements, and

2022(See Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529, 536-537, 539 [Wende framework does not extend beyond first appeal of 3 right from criminal conviction]; People v. Cole (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 1023 , 1028, review granted October 14, 2020, S264278 [same].) Nonetheless, we have conducted an independent review and found no arguable issues.

2026The Wende brief filed by Timms’s counsel does not draw our attention to any issues under Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, 744 .

2026The Wende brief filed by Thompson’s counsel does not draw our attention to any issues under Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, 744 .

2014(Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. San Francisco Airports Com. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 352, 366, fn. 2 ; People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1107, fn. 37 .) Regardless, we have considered the issues listed by counsel and conclude they fail on the merits.

2014(Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. San Francisco Airports Com. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 352, 366, fn. 2 .) Of course, by filing a Wende brief, counsel has verified he could not find a supporting argument for these, or any other, issues.

2025(Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 230 [“if the appellate court wishes, it may also exercise its discretion to conduct its own independent review of the record in the interest of justice”]; People v. Pittman (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 1252 , 1254, fn. 1 [exercising discretion to independently review postconviction order]; People v. Griffin (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 329 , 335-336 [“we find the interests of justice call for an independent review of the record as an additional layer of protection from the risk of a defendant remaining unlawfully incarcerated because of a failure to discover a meritoriou

2024However, existing restitution orders for the victims of his crimes were not suspended.3 3 Pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 , a Wende analysis is not generally available for postconviction relief.

2015(People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 118 ; see also Serrano, supra, 211 Cal.App.4th at p. 500 ; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441–442.) Our Supreme Court—and, ultimately, the United States Supreme Court (see Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 276 )—determined that the Wende requirement that the appellate court undertake a complete review of the record when counsel is unable to identify any 3 arguable issue on appeal adequately implements the mandates of Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 , in first appeals of right.

2015(People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 118 ; see also Serrano, supra, 211 Cal.App.4th at p. 500 ; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441–442.) Our Supreme Court—and, ultimately, the United States Supreme Court (see Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 276 )—determined that the Wende requirement that the appellate court undertake a complete review of the record when counsel is unable to identify any 3 arguable issue on appeal adequately implements the mandates of Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 , in first appeals of right.

1995(See, e.g., People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 443, 444 (conc. and dis. opn. of Clark, J.); People v. Von Staich (1980) 101 Cal. App.3d 172, 173-175 [ 161 Cal. Rptr. 448 ]; People v. Hackett (1995) 36 Cal. App.4th 1297, 1303-1305 [ 43 Cal. Rptr.2d 219 ].) However, the most reliable critique of the effectiveness of Wende review would seem derived not from theoretical analysis but from the experience of the courts which administer it, namely the Courts of Appeal.

1995(See, e.g., People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 443, 444 (conc. and dis. opn. of Clark, J.); People v. Von Staich (1980) 101 Cal. App.3d 172, 173-175 [ 161 Cal. Rptr. 448 ]; People v. Hackett (1995) 36 Cal. App.4th 1297, 1303-1305 [ 43 Cal. Rptr.2d 219 ].) However, the most reliable critique of the effectiveness of Wende review would seem derived not from theoretical analysis but from the experience of the courts which administer it, namely the Courts of Appeal.

2014(Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. San Francisco Airports Com. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 352, 366, fn. 2 ; People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1107, fn. 37 .) Regardless, we have considered the issues listed by counsel and conclude they fail on the merits.

2014(Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. San Francisco Airports Com. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 352, 366, fn. 2 ; People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1107, fn. 37 .) Regardless, we have considered the issues listed by counsel and conclude they fail on the merits.

1995(See, e.g., People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 443, 444 (conc. and dis. opn. of Clark, J.); People v. Von Staich (1980) 101 Cal. App.3d 172, 173-175 [ 161 Cal. Rptr. 448 ]; People v. Hackett (1995) 36 Cal. App.4th 1297, 1303-1305 [ 43 Cal. Rptr.2d 219 ].) However, the most reliable critique of the effectiveness of Wende review would seem derived not from theoretical analysis but from the experience of the courts which administer it, namely the Courts of Appeal.

1995(See, e.g., People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 443, 444 (conc. and dis. opn. of Clark, J.); People v. Von Staich (1980) 101 Cal. App.3d 172, 173-175 [ 161 Cal. Rptr. 448 ]; People v. Hackett (1995) 36 Cal. App.4th 1297, 1303-1305 [ 43 Cal. Rptr.2d 219 ].) However, the most reliable critique of the effectiveness of Wende review would seem derived not from theoretical analysis but from the experience of the courts which administer it, namely the Courts of Appeal.

2026He contends that if he had had access to the library and case files, and had been provided counsel, “I would have been able to defend myself better, and would have had the assistance I needed.” Second, Defendant argues the attorney who represented him at trial in Fakinos I “is under investigation for numerous cases that he didn’t perform a proper defense.” Defendant filed a complaint, which was denied, but he contends his appellate counsel in Fakinos I “should have shown due diligence and waited to see the result of the investigation before filing a Wende brief.” Neither of those arguments rel

2026DISCUSSION On appeal, defendant’s appointed appellate counsel filed a Wende brief, that is, an opening brief filed in accordance with the procedures outlined in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).

2025DISCUSSION I Applicable Law Effective January 1, 2019, Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill No. 1437) amended “the felony murder rule and the natural and probable consequences doctrine, as it relates to murder, to ensure that murder liability is not imposed on a person who is not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was not a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to 10 human life.” (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 1, subd. (f); see People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 959 .) Senate Bill No. 1437 did so by amending s

2021When “an appointed counsel files a Wende brief in an appeal from a summary denial of a section 1170.95 petition, a Court of Appeal is not required to independently review the entire record, but the court can and should do so in the interests of justice.” (People v. Flores (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 266 , 269.) While the appeal before us was pending, our Supreme Court decided People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952 , 957 holding that, when a petitioner files a facially sufficient petition under section 1170.95, the court shall appoint counsel, if requested, and determine whether the petitioner has mad

2026(See People v. Kent (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 293, 296 [the listing of potential issues (so-called Anders issues) is welcomed and encouraged]; but see People v. Garcia (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 314, 325 [the listing of Anders issues “is not necessarily helpful to the reviewing court or to an appellant”].) Here, counsel directed this court’s attention to four potential issues that had been considered, but were not raised on appeal: (1) whether Edgar’s adjudication violated Penal Code section 654; (2) whether the evidence showed that Edgar understood the wrongfulness of his conduct (criminal intent); (

2026(See People v. Kent (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 293, 296 [the listing of potential issues (so-called Anders issues) is welcomed and encouraged]; but see People v. Garcia (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 314, 325 [the listing of Anders issues “is not necessarily helpful to the reviewing court or to an appellant”].) Here, counsel directed this court’s attention to three potential issues that had been considered, but were not raised on appeal: (1) whether Magana’s rights to a fair trial were violated by transporting him to the courtroom in handcuffs and waist chains; (2) whether the prosecutor committed miscondu

2022We agree with another panel of this court, which has held that in uncontested appeals from the denial of a section 1170.95 petition, “we can and should independently review the record on appeal in the interests of justice.” (People v. Gallo (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 594 , 599 (but see dis. opn. of Menetrez, J.); accord People v. Flores (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 266 , 269 [“[W]hen an appointed counsel files a Wende brief in an appeal from a summary denial of a section 1170.95 petition, a Court of Appeal is not required to independently review the entire record, but the court can and should do so in the

2022We agree with another panel of this court, which has held that in uncontested appeals from the denial of a section 1170.95 petition, “we can and should independently review the record on appeal in the interests of justice.” (People v. Gallo (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 594 , 599 (but see dis. opn. of Menetrez, J.); accord People v. Flores (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 266 , 269 [“[W]hen an appointed counsel files a Wende brief in an appeal from a summary denial of a section 1170.95 petition, a Court of Appeal is not required to independently review the entire record, but the court can and should do so in the

2021As for his other trial contentions, while the filing of a Wende brief obligates this court to conduct a review of the entire record to determine whether there are any arguable issues that should be raised on an appellant’s behalf (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 442 ), Tyler has raised issues from his trial that are not properly before this court in this appeal. “[W]here a criminal defendant could have raised an issue in a prior appeal, the appellate court need not entertain the issue in a subsequent appeal absent a showing of justification for the delay.” (People v. Senior (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th

2021While the filing of a Wende brief obligates this court to conduct a review of the entire record to determine whether there are any arguable issues that should be raised on an appellant’s behalf (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 442 ), the issues in defendant’s letter briefs are from his trial and are not properly before this court in this second appeal. “[W]here a criminal defendant could have raised an issue in a prior appeal, the appellate court need not entertain the issue in a subsequent appeal absent a showing of justification for the delay.” (People v. Senior (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 531, 538

2009(In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 994.) In light of our decision in Sade C., the parent in the present case, M.H., does not argue, and could not reasonably argue, that the Court of Appeal erred in denying her request that the court independently review the entire record for error.

2009Unlike in a criminal case in which an indigent defendant's first appeal as of right remains a "cause" that must be resolved in a written opinion "with reasons stated" even after appointed counsel files a Wende brief ( People v. Kelly, supra, 40 Cal.4th 106, 119-120 ), we held that *843 the Court of Appeal could dismiss an indigent parent's appeal if appointed counsel filed a brief raising no arguable issues. ( In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 994.) In light of our decision in Sade C., the parent in the present case, M.H., does not argue, and could not reasonably argue, that the Court of

1990(In re Brian B. (1983) 141 Cal.App.3d 397, 398 [ 190 Cal.Rptr. 153 ].) However, “no Wende review is made if counsel’s brief presents ‘a substantive issue’ which if resolved favorably to the appellant would result in either ‘a reversal or a modification of the judgment.’” (People v. Woodard (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 944, 946 [ 229 Cal.Rptr. 350 ].) In fact, appellate courts refuse to engage in a Wende review even where counsel only “ ‘ “raises one or two frivolous issues, easily disposed of by the inspection of a few pages of transcript.” ’ ” (Ibid.) As noted above, petitioner filed both a Wende br

1990(In re Brian B. (1983) 141 Cal.App.3d 397, 398 [ 190 Cal.Rptr. 153 ].) However, “no Wende review is made if counsel’s brief presents ‘a substantive issue’ which if resolved favorably to the appellant would result in either ‘a reversal or a modification of the judgment.’” (People v. Woodard (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 944, 946 [ 229 Cal.Rptr. 350 ].) In fact, appellate courts refuse to engage in a Wende review even where counsel only “ ‘ “raises one or two frivolous issues, easily disposed of by the inspection of a few pages of transcript.” ’ ” (Ibid.) As noted above, petitioner filed both a Wende br

2026Pursuant to Wende, we are required “to conduct a review of the entire record whenever appointed counsel submits a brief which raises no specific issues or describes the appeal as frivolous.” (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441 .) Our independent review of the record has disclosed no reasonably arguable issues requiring further briefing. 8 We highlight our examination of the court’s ruling on Griffin’s Romero motion, for which we apply “the deferential abuse of discretion standard.” (People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 371 (Carmony).) The “Three Strikes” law was “intended to restrict courts

2023After examining the record, counsel filed a Wende brief raising no issues and requesting that we independently review the record. ( Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, 441 ; see also People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 , 109–110.) Green was advised by his attorney of the opportunity to file a supplemental brief with this court, but he has not done so. 3 People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754 . 4 People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 . 3 We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that Green’s attorney has complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists

2023After examining the record, counsel filed a Wende brief raising no issues and requesting that we independently review the record. ( Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, 441 ; see also People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 , 109–110.) Green was advised by his attorney of the opportunity to file a supplemental brief with this court, but he has not done so. 3 People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754 . 4 People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 . 3 We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that Green’s attorney has complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists

2015On March 2, 2015, defendant filed a petition pursuant to section 1170.18, subdivision (a) to have his felony sentence recalled and his offense resentenced as a 2 Defendant’s counsel notes in the Wende brief that the information also “alleges with regard to appellant’s burglary charge that he sustained a prior conviction for a serious felony pursuant to section 667.5, subdivision (a)(1), this pleading was defective in the absence of any subsequent amendment reflecting the appropriate provision for this allegation—section 667, subdivision (a)(1).” We need not consider this issue, because it is n

2014(In re Smith (1970) 3 Cal.3d 192, 202-203 .) However, the fact that appellate counsel filed a Wende brief is insufficient, by itself, to show appellate counsel has been ineffective.

1982(In re Smith (1970) 3 Cal.3d 192, 197 [ 90 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 474 P.2d 969 ].) By contrast, where a no-issue Wende brief is filed, the court’s review is unguided and undirected and is not initiated from the point of view of an advocate.

2025(People v. Buttram (2003) 30 Cal.4th 773, 780, 776 .) Appointed counsel filed a Wende brief and notified Villaneda he had a right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days.

2025(People v. Buttram (2003) 30 Cal.4th 773, 780 .) Counsel filed a Wende brief and notified Wright he had a right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days.

2016Without a certificate of probable cause, these contentions are not cognizable on appeal. (§ 1237.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(4); People v. Maultsby (2012) 53 Cal.4th 296, 299 .) 2 Having examined the entire record, counsel’s Wende brief, and Cuentas’s letter brief, we are satisfied appointed counsel has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist.

2013(People v. Maultsby (2012) 53 Cal.4th 296, 302 [issues concerning constitutional validity of guilty plea are cognizable on appeal, even absent certificate of probable cause].) We discern no constitutional invalidity in the plea.