22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4dd,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 the following possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Did the trial court err in refusing to consider Thompson’s motion as a request for resentencing? In his supplemental brief, Thompson complains about the assistance he received in the trial court and on appeal. He says the attorney in the trial court was ineffective for not developing a better record, counsel was both ineffective and corrupt. The correctional officers were corrupt at the trial. Thomson’s allegations about the 2003 trial, the circumstances around his convictions do not raise arguable issues for reversal of this order on appeal. We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Thompson on this appeal. 3 DISPOSITION The order denying Thompson’s motion for resentencing is affirmed. HUFFMAN, Acting P. J. WE CONCUR: AARON, J. DATO, J. 424:T511,

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 the following possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Did the trial court err in refusing to consider Thompson’s motion as a request for resentencing? In his supplemental brief, Thompson complains about the assistance he received in the trial court and on appeal. He says the attorney in the trial court was ineffective for not developing a better record, counsel was both ineffective and corrupt. The correctional officers were corrupt at the trial. Thomson’s allegations about the 2003 trial, the circumstances around his convictions do not raise arguable issues for reversal of this order on appeal. We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Thompson on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The order denying Thompson’s motion for resentencing is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

AARON, J.

DATO, J.