People v. Watson CA4/1

DISCUSSION

As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks us to review the record for error. Counsel, however, refuses to help the court in its review by complying with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders). Relying on a remark in our opinion in People v. Garcia (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 314, counsel appears to take the position he does not have to comply with Andres in a Wende review for possible error. Counsel is aware the court prefers counsel to comply with Anders to assist the court and to ensure counsel is providing competent representation to an indigent

All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.

The facts of the drug offense or the murder offense are not relevant to our review for error. Whether Watson was eligible for Proposition 47 relief is an issue of law. 2 defendant. Counsel asserts compliance with Anders might reveal his “impressions.” Although we disapprove of counsel’s position, in the present appeal the record is sparse and the application of section 1170.18 is clear. Counsel’s refusal to assist the court does not interfere with our ability to independently assess the question of…