People v. Parson CA4/1
Opinion
Opinion
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Delgadillo and asks the court to exercise its discretion to independently review the record for error. To assist the court in its review, and consistent with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Whether the court erred in finding Parson ineligible for resentencing because his conviction was for a violation of section 245.
2 In his supplemental brief, Parson does not explain why a conviction for a non-homicide offense should be eligible for resentencing under section 1172.6. Instead, Parson advises he has asked appellate counsel to file new motions under two different sets of legislative changes. Parson has not identified any potentially meritorious issues for reversal of the order on this appeal. We have independently reviewed the record for error in the same manner as under Wende. We have not discovered any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Parson on this appeal.