Delgadillo brief in California

2026Where a defendant files a supplemental brief after the filing of a Delgadillo brief, we are “required to evaluate the specific arguments presented in that brief and to issue a written opinion.” (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232 .) Kindschy does not, however, challenge the order entered after resentencing.

2026(In re Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 750, 767, fn. 7 .) We construe his petition as a postjudgment motion, because the “ ‘ “nature of a motion is determined by the nature of the relief sought, not by the label attached to it.” ’ ” (California Correctional Peace Officers Assn. v. Virga (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 30, 43 .) 3 that appellate counsel was ineffective for filing a Delgadillo brief. ( Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 221–222 [counsel may file Delgadillo brief when appeal from postconviction proceeding lacks merit]; Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 694 ; but see Delgadillo, at p.

2023In the brief, pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 , appellate counsel has identified the following issue to assist the court in its search of the record for error: “Did the trial court have jurisdiction to reconsider its prior denial of the section 1172.6 petitions (made on May 18, 2022) where there has been no significant change in the law and where trial counsel had been appointed after the original petition was filed?” On May 4, 2023, we sent notice to defendant regarding the filing of a Delgadillo brief, as follows: “Counsel for appellant has filed a brief stating no argua

2023In the brief, pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 , appellate counsel has identified the following issue to assist the court in its search of the record for error: “This Court Should Follow the Procedures Outlined in People v. Delgadillo.” On March 20, 2022, we sent notice to defendant regarding the filing of a Delgadillo brief, as follows: “Counsel for appellant has filed a brief stating no arguable 6 issues can be found.

2024Alleged ineffective assistance of counsel Francis’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim is premised on his appellate counsel’s filing of a Delgadillo brief instead of arguing his case. “[T]he constitutional right to assistance of counsel entitles an indigent defendant to independent review by the Court of Appeal when counsel is unable to identify any arguable issue on appeal.” (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 119 .) California’s Delgadillo procedure is akin to our procedure pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 , which was approved by the United States Supreme Court in Sm

2024(See Kelly, supra, at p. 118 .) Under these circumstances, Francis’s counsel did not render constitutionally ineffective assistance simply by filing a Delgadillo brief.

2024Alleged ineffective assistance of counsel Francis’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim is premised on his appellate counsel’s filing of a Delgadillo brief instead of arguing his case. “[T]he constitutional right to assistance of counsel entitles an indigent defendant to independent review by the Court of Appeal when counsel is unable to identify any arguable issue on appeal.” (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 119 .) California’s Delgadillo procedure is akin to our procedure pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 , which was approved by the United States Supreme Court in Sm

2024DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Delgadillo brief and asks the court to independently review the record for error in the same way we would do if this case was controlled by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 .

2026(In re Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 750, 767, fn. 7 .) We construe his petition as a postjudgment motion, because the “ ‘ “nature of a motion is determined by the nature of the relief sought, not by the label attached to it.” ’ ” (California Correctional Peace Officers Assn. v. Virga (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 30, 43 .) 3 that appellate counsel was ineffective for filing a Delgadillo brief. ( Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 221–222 [counsel may file Delgadillo brief when appeal from postconviction proceeding lacks merit]; Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 694 ; but see Delgadillo, at p.

2024If it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, which we expect will often be so, that course should be followed.” (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 697 ; People v. Thompson (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1043, 1101 ; In re Crew (2011) 52 Cal.4th 126, 150 [“[i]f a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel can be determined on 10 the ground of lack of prejudice, a court need not decide whether counsel’s performance was deficient”].) Furthermore, an appellate counsel does not commit ineffective assistance by filing a Wende/Delgadillo brief si

2025First, does the special circumstance finding, which predated People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788 (Bank) and People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522 (Clark), preclude relief given the Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698 (Strong)?

2024(People v. Strong, supra, 13 Cal.5th at p. 708 ; People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 959 .) The initial version of former section 1170.95 permitted “a person with an existing conviction for felony murder or murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine to petition the sentencing court to have the murder conviction vacated and to be resentenced on any remaining counts if he or she could not have been convicted of murder as a result of the other legislative changes implemented by [Senate Bill 1437].” (People v. Flores (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 985 , 992.) 3 Also in response to this

2026(In re Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 750, 767, fn. 7 .) We construe his petition as a postjudgment motion, because the “ ‘ “nature of a motion is determined by the nature of the relief sought, not by the label attached to it.” ’ ” (California Correctional Peace Officers Assn. v. Virga (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 30, 43 .) 3 that appellate counsel was ineffective for filing a Delgadillo brief. ( Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 221–222 [counsel may file Delgadillo brief when appeal from postconviction proceeding lacks merit]; Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 694 ; but see Delgadillo, at p.

2026Fregia asks us to strike the Delgadillo brief, construe his supplemental brief as a motion under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden), and appoint “a limited scope representative” or, at minimum, permit him to represent himself.

2026Fregia asks us to strike the Delgadillo brief, construe his supplemental brief as a motion under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden), and appoint “a limited scope representative” or, at minimum, permit him to represent himself.

2025In addition, Holtry’s brief in response to this court’s order to show cause and his subsequent Delgadillo brief cite People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367 (Carmony) to assert that a trial court’s decision not to act on a section 1172.1 request is appealable.

2025(See People v. Fuiava (2012) 53 Cal.4th 622 , 726–727.) 6 After appellate counsel filed the Delgadillo brief, we notified Tolentino that he could submit a supplemental brief on his own behalf.

2025First, does the special circumstance finding, which predated People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788 (Bank) and People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522 (Clark), preclude relief given the Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698 (Strong)?

2025Holtry’s brief in response to this court’s order to show cause and his subsequent Delgadillo brief rely on Loper, supra, 60 Cal.4th 1155 to argue that he may appeal from the trial court’s decision not to respond to his recall and resentencing request.

2025Holtry’s brief in response to this court’s order to show cause and his subsequent Delgadillo brief rely on Loper, supra, 60 Cal.4th 1155 to argue that he may appeal from the trial court’s decision not to respond to his recall and resentencing request.

2025First, does the special circumstance finding, which predated People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788 (Bank) and People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522 (Clark), preclude relief given the Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698 (Strong)?

2024Alleged ineffective assistance of counsel Francis’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim is premised on his appellate counsel’s filing of a Delgadillo brief instead of arguing his case. “[T]he constitutional right to assistance of counsel entitles an indigent defendant to independent review by the Court of Appeal when counsel is unable to identify any arguable issue on appeal.” (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 119 .) California’s Delgadillo procedure is akin to our procedure pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 , which was approved by the United States Supreme Court in Sm

2024(People v. Strong, supra, 13 Cal.5th at p. 708 ; People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 959 .) The initial version of former section 1170.95 permitted “a person with an existing conviction for felony murder or murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine to petition the sentencing court to have the murder conviction vacated and to be resentenced on any remaining counts if he or she could not have been convicted of murder as a result of the other legislative changes implemented by [Senate Bill 1437].” (People v. Flores (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 985 , 992.) 3 Also in response to this

2024If it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, which we expect will often be so, that course should be followed.” (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 697 ; People v. Thompson (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1043, 1101 ; In re Crew (2011) 52 Cal.4th 126, 150 [“[i]f a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel can be determined on 10 the ground of lack of prejudice, a court need not decide whether counsel’s performance was deficient”].) Furthermore, an appellate counsel does not commit ineffective assistance by filing a Wende/Delgadillo brief si