People v. Von Staich

In this case we remonstrate, undoubtedly with complete futility although with considerable sincerity, against the indefensible position in which the Courts of Appeal are placed by People v. Wende (1979), 25 Cal. 3d 436 [ 158 Cal.Rptr. 839 , 600 P.2d 1071 ], in its current impression of Anders v. California (1966), 386 U.S. 738 [ 18 L.Ed.2d 493 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 ]. We respectfully suggest a reexamination of Wende and at the same time a rewriting of some of the language of People v. Feggans (1967), 67 Cal.2d 444 [ 62 Cal.Rptr. 419 , 432 P.2d 21 ].

In this case, the defendant was convicted of escape. We appointed counsel, the State Public Defender, to represent him. Counsel filed a brief which contains a statement of the case, a statement of facts, and a statement of the “principal issue at trial” which contention is set forth as follows, “Were the findings of the jury supported by substantial evidence?” Under the admonition of Wende , counsel then requested this court to conduct an independent review of the entire appellate record in order to determine for itself whether the appeal contained any arguable appellate issues. Counsel did not withdraw from the case. He has not…