Woodard

A jury found appellant and a codefendant guilty of burglary in the second degree. Both were sentenced to prison, and defendant Woodard appealed. We appointed counsel for him. That attorney filed a brief fully stating the facts of the case, with detailed citations to the transcript. He stated two issues which his client suggested be raised on appeal. Counsel did not argue adversely to his client. He concluded his brief by stating that he “is unable to locate any conceivably appeal-able issues to present on appellant’s behalf.” He asked permission to with draw as counsel, and so notified appellant. Thus counsel fully complied with the applicable California authority. (People v. Feggans, 67 Cal.2d 444, 447-448 [ 62 Cal.Rptr. 419 , 432 P.2d 21 ]) interpreting the federal rule (Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 [ 18 L.Ed.2d 493 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 ]).

Upon our independent and detailed examination of the record, we relieved court-appointed counsel, denied appellant’s request for appointment of successor counsel, and granted appellant 30 days to file any written argument he desired. More than three months have passed and no brief or letter has been filed.

We have again reviewed…