Discussion We appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. After an examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and requesting that we follow the procedures outlined in People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216. Because the instant appeal is not from appellant’s conviction, he is not entitled to our independent review of the record. He is, however, entitled to appellate consideration of any contentions raised in his supplemental brief. (See Delgadillo, at p. 232.) In his supplemental brief, appellant claims ineffective assistance of counsel because appellate counsel did not “meet and confer over issues at bar,” and appellant did not “author[ize]” counsel to file a Delgadillo brief. Appellant attaches numerous documents to his supplemental letter and asks this court to “take Judicial Notice of what is now offered.” We decline to do so. We have reviewed the record, including appellant’s supplemental brief and attachments, and conclude that appellant fails to raise any arguable issue. To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show counsel’s representation was deficient and that he was prejudiced by the deficiency. (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 693-694, 697.) “If a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel can be determined on the ground of lack of prejudice, a court need not decide whether counsel’s performance was deficient.” (In re Crew (2011) 52 Cal.4th 126, 150.) Here, there is no showing of prejudice. Appellant’s disagreement with counsel’s legal determination does not amount to ineffective representation on appeal. As counsel indicated in her brief, “[t]here is no authority in the Penal Code for this motion.” Section 1465.9, upon which appellant’s motion is based,

3 provides relief from certain costs and fees imposed on criminal defendants. (See People v. Clark (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 248, 259- 260.) The statute does not contain a procedure by which a defendant may file a standalone, postjudgment motion seeking vacatur of a previously, validly imposed fine. Where a defendant whose conviction is final files a statutorily unauthorized “‘freestanding’” petition, both the court below and this court lack jurisdiction to consider the arguments raised therein. (See People v. King (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 629, 640; People v. Hodges (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 186, 190.) Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed. Disposition The appeal is dismissed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

YEGAN, Acting P. J.

We concur:

BALTODANO, J.

CODY, J.

4 David M. Hirsch, Judge Superior Court County of Ventura ______________________________

Nancy Haydt, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Respondent