Wende brief in California

2022(See id. at pp. 503-504; see also People v. Cole (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 1023 , 1028, 1029, 1040 [appellate court dismissed appeal from denial of 2 § 1170.95 petition without conducting independent review, where appointed counsel filed Wende brief and defendant did not file supplemental brief], review granted Oct. 14, 2020, S264278; People v. Scott (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 1127 , 1129-1130 [same], review granted Mar. 17, 2021, S266853; People v. Figueras (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 108 [same], review granted May 12, 2021, S267870; but see People v. Flores (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 266 , 269 [when appointed c

2021(People v. Cole, supra, 52 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1039-1040; People v. Figueras (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 108 , 112-113, review granted May 12, 2021, S267870; People v. Scott (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 1127 , 1129-1130, review granted Mar. 17, 2021, S266853; but see People v. Flores (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 266 , 269 [holding “that when 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. Allison (2020) 55

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.

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

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.

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

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 .

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 4 t

2021(People v. Cole, supra, 52 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1039-1040; People v. Figueras (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 108 , 112-113, review granted May 12, 2021, S267870; People v. Scott (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 1127 , 1129-1130, review granted Mar. 17, 2021, S266853; but see People v. Flores (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 266 , 269 [holding “that when 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. Allison (2020) 55

2026(People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 230 (Delgadillo) [“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”].) Here, appellate counsel’s filing of a Wende brief, and this court’s Wende order, th

2026(People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 230 (Delgadillo) [“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”].) Here, appellate counsel’s filing of a Wende brief, and this court’s Wende order, th

2022(See id. at pp. 503-504; see also People v. Cole (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 1023 , 1028, 1029, 1040 [appellate court dismissed appeal from denial of 2 § 1170.95 petition without conducting independent review, where appointed counsel filed Wende brief and defendant did not file supplemental brief], review granted Oct. 14, 2020, S264278; People v. Scott (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 1127 , 1129-1130 [same], review granted Mar. 17, 2021, S266853; People v. Figueras (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 108 [same], review granted May 12, 2021, S267870; but see People v. Flores (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 266 , 269 [when appointed c

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.

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 potential issues “is not necessarily helpful to the reviewing court or to an appellant”].) Here, counsel identified four issues that were considered, but not raised on appeal: (1) sufficiency of the evidence; (2) self-defense; (3) true finding of an uncharged lesser included offense; and (4) lawfulness of the arrest regarding the resisting arrest true finding.

2026(See People v. Kent (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 293, 298-300 [discussing practice of counsel identifying possible arguable issues in Wende brief].) Counsel also advised Green of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the filing of the opening brief.

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.

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.

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).

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

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

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.

2026(People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 230 (Delgadillo) [“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”].) Here, appellate counsel’s filing of a Wende brief, and this court’s Wende order, th

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