People v. Carranza CA2/6

DISCUSSION

Appellant is not entitled to our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, or its federal constitutional counterpart, Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [18 L.Ed. 2d 493], because he appeals an order dealing with postconviction relief rather than his underlying criminal conviction. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 221- 222, 230; see People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 119 [independent judicial review mandated by Anders applies only to first appeal as of right]; People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496, 503.) He is nevertheless entitled to our consideration of the contentions raised in his supplemental brief. (See Delgadillo, at p. 232; Serrano, at p. 503.) Appellant’s supplemental briefs lack any formal legal arguments and appears to be an attempt to appeal his 1981 conviction. He asserts his innocence, claims he acted in self- defense, and says his victim stabbed himself. He claims the trial prosecutor threatened, violated, and scared witnesses out of testifying on his behalf, then used the same tactics to induce other witnesses to lie and testify against him. He laments not having testified in his own…