I. DISCUSSION

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 such as the one at issue here is an open question. Our Supreme Court is set to resolve the issue with respect to resentencing petitions under section 1170.95 in People v. Delgadillo (Nov. 18, 2020, B304441) [nonpub. opn.], review granted February 17, 2021, S266305. As we recently explained in People v. Figueras (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 108, review granted May 12, 2021, S267870, in an appeal from a section 1170.95 petition, appointed counsel is required to independently review the entire record and may file a brief advising the appellate court that there are no arguable issues to raise on appeal. Counsel must then notify the defendant that he or she has a right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the filing of counsel’s brief. Although this court “has the duty to address any issues raised by the defendant,” we may otherwise “dismiss the appeal without conducting an independent review of the record.” (Figueras, supra, at pp. 112- 113.) Just as in Figueras, defendant here appeals from a postjudgment motion. Defendant’s appointed counsel filed a brief raising no issues, and defendant declined to file a supplemental brief, despite having the opportunity to do so. Under the circumstances, Wende and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 do not require us to read the entire record ourselves to look for arguable grounds for reversal. We accordingly dismiss the appeal as abandoned. (See People v. Figueras, supra,

2 61 Cal.App.5th 112-113, review granted; see also People v. Cole (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 1023, 1031-1034, 1036-1037, review granted Oct. 14, 2020, S264278 [Wende procedures do not apply to appeal from order denying postconviction petition for resentencing under § 1170.95].)

II. DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

/S/

RENNER, J.

We concur:

/S/

HOCH, Acting P. J.

/S/

KRAUSE, J.

3