People v. Pena 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 regarding 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 brief lacks any formal legal arguments and appears, primarily, to challenge a conviction he considers wrongful. He contends his defense attorney provided ineffective assistance by failing to present exculpatory evidence and to raise defenses based on lack of jurisdiction and the statute of limitations. He laments following his attorney’s advice not to testify at trial. Appellant claims the sentencing court mistakenly stated he had four…