People v. Daniel CA2/2

DISCUSSION

Because the instant appeal is not from his conviction, Daniel is not entitled to our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 or its federal constitutional counterpart, Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 226 [“the procedures set out in Anders and Wende do not apply to an appeal from the denial of postconviction relief”]; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 119 [independent judicial review mandated by Anders applies only to first appeal as of right]; see also Pennsylvania v. Finley (1987) 481 U.S. 551, 559.) However, although “[t]he filing of a supplemental brief or letter does not compel an independent review of the entire record to identify unraised issues,” we are required to address the contentions Daniel raises in his supplemental brief. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232 [“the Court of Appeal is required to evaluate the specific arguments

2 This finding was based on the superior court’s review of the records of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

3 presented in [the supplemental] brief and to issue a written opinion”].) 1. Applicable legal principles A…