People v. Clark CA2/6

Discussion Where, as here, appointed counsel finds no arguable issues in an appeal from an order denying postconviction relief pursuant to section 1172.6, 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. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 226.) He is, however, entitled to appellate consideration of any contentions raised in his supplemental brief. (Id. at p. 232.) Here, appellant filed three supplemental briefs challenging his conviction for attempted murder and contending that he lacked the requisite intent to kill when he discharged his firearm. For example, he contends he merely “shot in the air” and “[tried] to avoid anyone being hurt.” But appellant presented this version of events at the hearing, and the trial court found it to be “unbelievable” and “unpersuasive.” Insofar as appellant asks us to reconsider the evidence and come to a different conclusion than the trial court, we decline to do so. Appellant also appears to challenge appellate counsel’s representation in this appeal. This contention is meritless because…