People v. Mendez CA2/2

DISCUSSION

Because the instant appeal is not from his conviction, Mendez is not entitled to our independent review of the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, or its federal constitutional counterpart, Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493]. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 227 [“Courts below have uniformly agreed that Wende procedures are not constitutionally required on an appeal from a denial of a postconviction petition under section 1172.6”]; 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 [107 S.Ct. 1990, 95 L.Ed.2d 539].) 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 Mendez raises in his supplemental brief. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232 [“the Court of Appeal is required to

3 evaluate the specific arguments presented in [the supplemental] brief and to issue a written opinion”].) Mendez’s Claim Regarding New DNA Evidence Is…