People v. Panyanouvong CA3
Opinion
Opinion
Mauro, J.
DISCUSSION
The California Supreme Court has not decided whether the protections afforded by Wende and the United States Supreme Court decision in Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [18 L.Ed.2d 493] apply to an appeal from an order denying a postconviction request to strike fines, fees, and assessments. And although People v. Dueñas, supra, 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 remains citable precedent, some courts have criticized Dueñas’s legal analysis (see, e.g., People v. Hicks (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 320, review granted Nov. 26, 2019, S258946) and the California Supreme Court has not yet resolved the split in authority. In some circumstances this court has nevertheless exercised its discretion to adhere to Wende where defendant’s counsel undertook to comply with Wende requirements. But we decline to do so here. Any error in the trial court’s 2021 order inured to defendant’s benefit because defendant filed his petition over four years after he was sentenced and more than six months after his appeal was final, the petition did not
2 assert a clerical error, and the challenged fines, fees, and assessments were authorized at the time they were imposed.