Anders brief in California

2025Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 , appellate counsel identified two potential issues to assist in our independent review.2 After an examination of the entire record and appointed counsel’s Wende/Anders brief, we find no reasonable arguable issues.

2014Consistent with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, 744 , counsel identified one possible but not reasonably arguable issue (Anders issue): 4 (1) "Was appellant correctly denied presentence conduct credits for her 88 days in a residential treatment program?

2003(Penson v. Ohio, supra, 488 U.S. at pp. 81-82; McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin (1988) 486 U.S. 429, 439 [100 L.Ed.íd 440, 108 S.Ct. 1895 ].) The Anders rule is not the result of an “ ‘independent constitutional’ ” requirement but rather a “ ‘prophylactic framework’ ” for vindicating the right to counsel established in Douglas v. California, supra, 372 U.S. at pages 357-358.

2003(Penson v. Ohio, supra, 488 U.S. at pp. 81-82; McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin (1988) 486 U.S. 429, 439 [100 L.Ed.íd 440, 108 S.Ct. 1895 ].) The Anders rule is not the result of an “ ‘independent constitutional’ ” requirement but rather a “ ‘prophylactic framework’ ” for vindicating the right to counsel established in Douglas v. California, supra, 372 U.S. at pages 357-358.

2003(Penson v. Ohio (1988) 488 U.S. 75, 80 [ 102 L.Ed.2d 300 , 109 S.Ct. 346 ]; Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 744.) The so-called Anders brief serves two functions.

2003(Penson v. Ohio (1988) 488 U.S. 75, 80 [ 102 L.Ed.2d 300 , 109 S.Ct. 346 ]; Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 744.) The so-called Anders brief serves two functions.

2003Second, the Anders process assists the court in evaluating whether the appeal indeed is frivolous and can be decided without adversary resolution. ( Penson v. Ohio, supra, 488 U.S. at pp. 81-82; McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin (1988) 486 U.S. 429 , 439 [ 100 L.Ed.2d 440 , 108 S.Ct. 1895 ].) The Anders rule is not the result of an "`independent constitutional'" requirement but rather a "`prophylactic framework'" for vindicating the right to counsel established in Douglas v. California, supra, 372 U.S. at pages 357-358. ( Smith v. Robbins, supra, 528 U.S. at p. 273 ; Pennsylvania v. Finle

2003Second, the Anders process assists the court in evaluating whether the appeal indeed is frivolous and can be decided without adversary resolution. ( Penson v. Ohio, supra, 488 U.S. at pp. 81-82; McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin (1988) 486 U.S. 429 , 439 [ 100 L.Ed.2d 440 , 108 S.Ct. 1895 ].) The Anders rule is not the result of an "`independent constitutional'" requirement but rather a "`prophylactic framework'" for vindicating the right to counsel established in Douglas v. California, supra, 372 U.S. at pages 357-358. ( Smith v. Robbins, supra, 528 U.S. at p. 273 ; Pennsylvania v. Finle

2024We have examined the entire record and appointed counsel’s Wende/Anders brief; we find no reasonably arguable issue. ( Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 .) We therefore affirm.

2023In the interest of justice, we have examined the entire record as well as appointed counsel’s Wende/Anders brief and find no reasonably arguable issue. ( Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 .) We therefore affirm. 2 FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2004, a jury found Quiroz guilty of premeditated and deliberate attempted murder (§§ 664, subd. (a), 187, subd. (a)), criminal threats (§ 422), and two counts of street terrorism (§ 186.22, subd. (a)), all felonies.

2022DISCUSSION As required by People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 124 , we affirmatively note that appointed counsel has filed a Wende/Anders brief raising no issues, that appellant has been advised of his right to file a supplemental brief, and that appellant did not file such a brief.

2022DISCUSSION As required by People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 124 , we affirmatively note that appointed counsel has filed a Wende/Anders brief raising no issues, that appellant has been advised of his right to file a 1 Further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 supplemental brief, and that appellant did not file such a brief.

2018In Smith , the court clarified and emphasized that the Anders framework, including the step in which counsel lists arguable issues in support of his or her motion to withdraw, was only a "suggestion." ( Smith, supra , 528 U.S. at pp. 273-274, 120 S.Ct. 746 .) The Smith court noted that Anders "sketched" out merely one method of protecting an indigent defendant's constitutional right to appellate counsel, and individual states are free to adopt different procedures "so long as those procedures adequately safeguard a defendant's right to appellate counsel." ( Smith , at pp. 265, 272-276, 120 S.C

2018In Smith , the court clarified and emphasized that the Anders framework, including the step in which counsel lists arguable issues in support of his or her motion to withdraw, was only a "suggestion." ( Smith, supra , 528 U.S. at pp. 273-274, 120 S.Ct. 746 .) The Smith court noted that Anders "sketched" out merely one method of protecting an indigent defendant's constitutional right to appellate counsel, and individual states are free to adopt different procedures "so long as those procedures adequately safeguard a defendant's right to appellate counsel." ( Smith , at pp. 265, 272-276, 120 S.C

2013In In re Sade C., the California Supreme Court held that review pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 is unavailable in "an indigent parent's appeal from a judgment or order, obtained by the state, adversely affecting [her] custody of a child or [her] status as the child's parent." (In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 959 .) We therefore deny Sherri's requests to review the record for error and to address her Anders issue.

2003Second, the Anders process assists the court in evaluating whether the appeal indeed is frivolous and can be decided without adversary resolution. ( Penson v. Ohio, supra, 488 U.S. at pp. 81-82; McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin (1988) 486 U.S. 429 , 439 [ 100 L.Ed.2d 440 , 108 S.Ct. 1895 ].) The Anders rule is not the result of an "`independent constitutional'" requirement but rather a "`prophylactic framework'" for vindicating the right to counsel established in Douglas v. California, supra, 372 U.S. at pages 357-358. ( Smith v. Robbins, supra, 528 U.S. at p. 273 ; Pennsylvania v. Finle

2023(People v. Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232 .) To assist us in our review, counsel suggested we consider whether a person convicted of conspiracy to commit murder is eligible for resentencing.

2023(People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 232 (Delgadillo).) As discussed below, we find no reasonably arguable issues on appeal, and the issue suggested by counsel has no merit.

2003Second, the Anders process assists the court in evaluating whether the appeal indeed is frivolous and can be decided without adversary resolution. ( Penson v. Ohio, supra, 488 U.S. at pp. 81-82; McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin (1988) 486 U.S. 429 , 439 [ 100 L.Ed.2d 440 , 108 S.Ct. 1895 ].) The Anders rule is not the result of an "`independent constitutional'" requirement but rather a "`prophylactic framework'" for vindicating the right to counsel established in Douglas v. California, supra, 372 U.S. at pages 357-358. ( Smith v. Robbins, supra, 528 U.S. at p. 273 ; Pennsylvania v. Finle

2003Second, the Anders process assists the court in evaluating whether the appeal indeed is frivolous and can be decided without adversary resolution. ( Penson v. Ohio, supra, 488 U.S. at pp. 81-82; McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin (1988) 486 U.S. 429 , 439 [ 100 L.Ed.2d 440 , 108 S.Ct. 1895 ].) The Anders rule is not the result of an "`independent constitutional'" requirement but rather a "`prophylactic framework'" for vindicating the right to counsel established in Douglas v. California, supra, 372 U.S. at pages 357-358. ( Smith v. Robbins, supra, 528 U.S. at p. 273 ; Pennsylvania v. Finle

1996It should not even have acted on the request because it had not yet "made its own examination of the record to determine whether counsel's evaluation of the case was sound." ( Penson v. Ohio, supra, 488 U.S. at pp. 82-83 [ 102 L.Ed.2d at p. 310 ].) "Obviously, a court cannot determine whether counsel is in fact correct in concluding that an appeal is frivolous without itself examining the record for arguable appellate issues." ( Id. at p. 83, fn. 6 [ 102 L.Ed.2d at p. 310 ].) Having chosen to act, however, it should have denied the request: counsel "failed to draw attention," through an Anders

1996It should not even have acted on the request because it had not yet "made its own examination of the record to determine whether counsel's evaluation of the case was sound." ( Penson v. Ohio, supra, 488 U.S. at pp. 82-83 [ 102 L.Ed.2d at p. 310 ].) "Obviously, a court cannot determine whether counsel is in fact correct in concluding that an appeal is frivolous without itself examining the record for arguable appellate issues." ( Id. at p. 83, fn. 6 [ 102 L.Ed.2d at p. 310 ].) Having chosen to act, however, it should have denied the request: counsel "failed to draw attention," through an Anders

2007If a conservatorship is reestablished, the conservatee has renewed rehearing and appellate rights." ( Ibid.) In Ben C , the court also offered "guidance for the Courts of Appeal." ( Ben C, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 544 , 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 856 , 150 P.3d 738 .) Among other points, the court stated at footnote 6 that when counsel in a conservatorship proceeding cannot find an arguable issue, "The conservatee is to be provided a copy of the brief and informed of the right to file a supplemental brief." ( Ben C, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 544, fn. 6 , 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 856 , 150 P.3d 738 , italics added; And

2007If a conservatorship is reestablished, the conservatee has renewed rehearing and appellate rights." ( Ibid.) In Ben C , the court also offered "guidance for the Courts of Appeal." ( Ben C, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 544 , 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 856 , 150 P.3d 738 .) Among other points, the court stated at footnote 6 that when counsel in a conservatorship proceeding cannot find an arguable issue, "The conservatee is to be provided a copy of the brief and informed of the right to file a supplemental brief." ( Ben C, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 544, fn. 6 , 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 856 , 150 P.3d 738 , italics added; And

1996In the words of Anders itself, it must have "ready references not only to the record, but also to ... legal authorities...." ( Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 745 [ 18 L.Ed.2d at p. 498 ].) In Feggans 's paraphrase, it must not only "set forth a statement of the facts with citations to the transcript," but also "discuss the legal issues with citations of appropriate authority...." ( People v. Feggans, supra, 67 Cal.2d at p. 447 .) Although each of the briefs in question has facts, none has law. [1] This court has not decided whether the state or federal Constitutions entitle indige

1996In the words of Anders itself, it must have "ready references not only to the record, but also to ... legal authorities...." ( Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 745 [ 18 L.Ed.2d at p. 498 ].) In Feggans 's paraphrase, it must not only "set forth a statement of the facts with citations to the transcript," but also "discuss the legal issues with citations of appropriate authority...." ( People v. Feggans, supra, 67 Cal.2d at p. 447 .) Although each of the briefs in question has facts, none has law. [1] This court has not decided whether the state or federal Constitutions entitle indige

1995A court would have to conduct its own independent review of the record, making it, in effect, a defendant’s ‘counsel’ searching for possible trial errors, or, if the court accepted counsel’s conclusion (as may happen in practice), counsel would become the ‘court’ determining the merits of a defendant’s appeal.” (Commonwealth v. McGeth (1985) 347 Pa. Super. 333 [ 500 A.2d 860, 868, fn. 6 ] (cone. opn. of Hoffman, J.).) 9 Although in a minute number of cases, see footnote 4, ante.

1995A court would have to conduct its own independent review of the record, making it, in effect, a defendant’s ‘counsel’ searching for possible trial errors, or, if the court accepted counsel’s conclusion (as may happen in practice), counsel would become the ‘court’ determining the merits of a defendant’s appeal.” (Commonwealth v. McGeth (1985) 347 Pa. Super. 333 [ 500 A.2d 860, 868, fn. 6 ] (cone. opn. of Hoffman, J.).) 9 Although in a minute number of cases, see footnote 4, ante.

1995(See ibid. ) Feggans was later cited by In re Smith (1970) 3 Cal.3d 192 [ 90 Cal. Rptr. 1 , 474 P.2d 969 ] to justify concluding that appellate counsel had rendered ineffective assistance where the counsel had failed to raise any issues in a case which was "bristling with arguable claims of error." ( Smith, supra, 3 Cal.3d at pp. 198 & 203.) Smith, in turn, was used in People v. Rhoden (1972) 6 Cal.3d 519 [ 99 Cal. Rptr. 751 , 492 P.2d 1143 ] to again justify an ineffective assistance holding where counsel had failed to raise any of a number of possible errors which "might have resulted in rev

1995(See ibid. ) Feggans was later cited by In re Smith (1970) 3 Cal.3d 192 [ 90 Cal. Rptr. 1 , 474 P.2d 969 ] to justify concluding that appellate counsel had rendered ineffective assistance where the counsel had failed to raise any issues in a case which was "bristling with arguable claims of error." ( Smith, supra, 3 Cal.3d at pp. 198 & 203.) Smith, in turn, was used in People v. Rhoden (1972) 6 Cal.3d 519 [ 99 Cal. Rptr. 751 , 492 P.2d 1143 ] to again justify an ineffective assistance holding where counsel had failed to raise any of a number of possible errors which "might have resulted in rev

1995Texas: In Johnson v. State (Tex.Crim.App. 1994) 885 S.W.2d 641 , the Court of Criminal Appeals cited McCoy v. Court of Appeals (1988) 486 U.S. 429 [ 100 L.Ed.2d 440 , 108 S.Ct. 1895 ] and Penson v. Ohio (1988) 488 U.S. 75 and explained the reviewing court’s duties when appointed counsel filed an Anders motion to withdraw as follows: “[First] we examine the attorney’s brief for compliance with the rules as we have articulated them today. [Citation.] The second task requires, in effect, that this court brief the appeal itself, because we must conduct ‘a full examination of all the proceedings’ t

1995App. 1978) 573 S.W.2d 807, 811 ["[I]n the last analysis, it is up to the court, not counsel, `after a full examination of all proceedings, to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.' [An Anders brief] ... aids the reviewing court in studying a cold record."].) UTAH: In State v. Allgood (1972) 28 Utah 2d 119 [ 499 P.2d 269 ], the Utah Supreme Court followed Anders and dismissed the appeal "[a]fter a review of the record and reference to the legal authorities cited." Almost a decade later, in State v. Clayton (Utah 1981) 639 P.2d 168, 170 , the Utah Supreme Court broke the Anders requiremen

1995The Indiana Court of Appeals rejected that requirement for several reasons, not the least of which were the problems of appointing “new counsel should this court find merit to the appeal. . . and the additional cost of new counsel to the taxpayers.” (Id. at p. 107.) Illinois: See People v. House (1975) 26 Ill.App.3d 330 [ 325 N.E.2d 69, 70 ], where the appellate court wrote, “We have examined those points [raised by defendant himself] and the record in this case and find no merit to [them] ....

1995The Indiana Court of Appeals rejected that requirement for several reasons, not the least of which were the problems of appointing "new counsel should this court find merit to the appeal ... and the additional cost of new counsel to the taxpayers." ( Id. at p. 107.) ILLINOIS: See People v. House (1975) 26 Ill.