People v. Nguyen CA3

DISCUSSION

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief requesting Wende review of the court’s postjudgment order denying defendant’s section 1170.95 petition. Counsel properly advised defendant of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. Defendant has filed a supplemental brief. Whether the protections afforded by Wende and the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 apply to an appeal from an order denying a postjudgment motion to modify a sentence is an open question. Our

There was some confusion as to the nature of the hearing the court was holding. The court stated the hearing was for the purpose of determining if defendant had made a prima facie showing of eligibility and indicated it had issued an “order directing the parties to brief why the Court should not grant relief.” However, in its written order, the court indicated the matter had advanced to the order-to-show-cause hearing stage and thus the People had the burden of proving defendant ineligible for relief.

3 Supreme Court is set to resolve the issue in People v.…