People v. Lopez CA4/1

DISCUSSION

As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to review the record for error. To assist the court in its review, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Whether the trial court erred in denying the request for a Franklin hearing and in denying the motion to strike the firearm enhancements. In addition, counsel considered what procedures the

appellate court should use in response to this appeal.3 We have reviewed the entire record for error as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Lopez on this appeal.

We presume counsel is referring to the question of whether Wende review is appropriate for appeals from postjudgment orders. 3

DISPOSITION

The order denying Lopez’s motions for a Franklin hearing and to strike the firearm enhancements is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

O'ROURKE, J.

4