People v. Ross CA2/8

DISCUSSION

After counsel filed his Wende brief, appellant was notified he could submit any contentions or issues that he wished us to consider. He did not file a supplemental brief. From our review of the entire record, we are satisfied counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities and no arguable issues exist. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123-124; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

FLIER, J.

WE CONCUR:

RUBIN, Acting P. J.

GRIMES, J.

3 To the extent the court construed appellant’s letters as a petition for recall of sentence, we note the appellate courts have reached conflicting conclusions on whether an order denying this type of petition is appealable, and the issue is currently under review by the California Supreme Court in Teal v. Superior Court (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 308, review granted July 31, 2013, S211708, and In re Martinez (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 610, review granted May 14, 2014, S216922. We need not decide this threshold issue and add to the debate. Even if the order is not appealable, we could review the order by writ petition.

3