People v. Medina CA2/1

DISCUSSION

When appointed counsel files a brief in an appeal from the denial of postconviction relief that identifies no appellate issues and the defendant files a supplemental brief, we are “required to evaluate the specific arguments presented in [the defendant’s supplemental] brief.” (People v Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.) We are not, however, required to conduct an independent review of the record to identify arguable issues. (Ibid.) Although we have discretion to conduct an independent review, we decline to do so in this case. In his supplemental brief, Medina asserts two claims of error regarding the superior court’s denial of his section 1172.6 petition. He asserts (1) there was no valid waiver of his right to be present at the May 23, 2025 hearing where the court denied his petition, and (2) the instructions given at his trial permitted to the jury to impute malice to him. Medina had no right to be personally present at the May 23, 2025 hearing as it concerned the legal question of whether he had established a prima facie case for relief. (People v. Basler (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 46, 58-59 [a defendant’s right to

3 be present in a postconviction matter arises…