People v. Hedrick CA2/6

DISCUSSION

Appellant 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, because he appeals an order denying postconviction relief rather than his underlying criminal conviction. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 221-222, 230; see People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 119 [independent judicial review mandated by Anders applies only to first appeal as of right]; People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496, 503.) Appellant is nevertheless entitled to our consideration of the contentions raised in his supplemental brief. (See Delgadillo, at p. 232.) The trial court properly denied appellant’s motion for at least three reasons. First, it lacked jurisdiction to consider a Dueñas claim after his judgment of conviction was final. (People v. Torres (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 1081, 1085.) Second, Dueñas does not apply here. Victim restitution is constitutionally mandated for the purpose of making victims whole for their losses. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 28, subd. (b)(13); People v. Allen (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 312, 326; People v. Evans (2019) 39…