Filed 8/3/20 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO THE PEOPLE, B304329 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NA061968) v. FREDDIE COLE, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Jesus I. Rodriguez, Judge. Dismissed. Mark Alan Hart, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. ****** This appeal presents a problem that is both commonplace and elusive. When counsel appointed to represent a criminal defendant during the initial appeal of his conviction concludes that there are no reasonably arguable issues to present to the Court of Appeal, People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) delineates the procedures both counsel and the Court of Appeal are to follow. What procedures apply when the appeal is from the denial of postconviction relief (rather than, as in Wende, the defendant’s first appeal of right)? Do Wende’s procedures still apply? And if not, on what basis may a Court of Appeal prescribe the procedures that counsel and the court are to follow? A handful of courts have addressed the first question, but the second has yet to be confronted. We publish to provide our views and guidance on both questions. Taking the second question first, we hold that Wende’s constitutional underpinnings do not apply to appeals from the denial of postconviction relief; consequently, the procedures we and other courts have prescribed are grounded solely in our supervisory powers to control the proceedings before us. We further hold that, in the exercise of these powers, counsel appointed in such appeals is required to independently review the entire record and, if counsel so finds, file a brief advising the appellate court that there are “no arguable issues to raise on appeal”; the defendant has a right to file a supplemental brief; and this court has the duty to address any issues raised by the defendant but otherwise may dismiss the appeal without conducting an independent review of the record. Because the defendant who has appealed the denial of postconviction relief in this case has not filed a supplemental brief, we dismiss this appeal as abandoned. 2 FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND I. Facts In 2007, a jury convicted Freddie Cole (defendant) of (1) murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)),1 and (2) arson of an inhabited structure (§ 451, subd. (b)). That same year, the trial court sentenced defendant to prison for 35 years to life. This was a “third strike” sentence under our state’s Three Strikes Law (§§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667, subds. (b)-(j)), plus 10 years because each of his two prior strikes also constituted prior serious felonies (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)); one of defendant’s prior “strikes” was also for arson of an inhabited structure. We affirmed his convictions and sentence in 2008. (People v. Cole (Aug. 7, 2008, B202387) [nonpub. opn.].) II. Procedural Background In April 2019, defendant filed a petition seeking ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals