California Court of Appeal Jun 6, 2025 No. E084816Unpublished
Filed 6/6/25 P. v. Lopez CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, No. E084816
v. (Super.Ct.No. RIF1400906)
ANTHONY JACOB LOPEZ, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Joshlyn Pulliam, Judge.
Dismissed.
Lizabeth Weis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
I.
INTRODUCTION
Defendant and appellant Anthony Jacob Lopez appeals the trial court’s
postjudgment order denying his petition for resentencing of his voluntary manslaughter
conviction (Pen. Code,1 § 192, subd. (a)) under section 1172.6. Appointed counsel has
filed a brief under the authority of People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216
(Delgadillo), requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record. In
After defendant appealed, appointed appellate counsel filed a brief under the
authority of Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th 216, setting forth a statement of the case and a
summary of the procedural background. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436
(Wende); Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders).) Counsel considered
potential issues on appeal but found no specific arguments as grounds for relief, and
requests that we exercise our discretion and independently examine the appellate record
for any arguable issues.{AOB 5-9} Under Anders, which requires “a brief referring to
anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal,” (Anders, at p. 744)
counsel raises the issue of whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying
defendant’s section 1172.6 petition.{AOB 9}
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief. We
noted that if he did not do so, we could dismiss the appeal. Nevertheless, defendant has
not filed one.{ACCMS 4/16/25 Order} Under these circumstances, we have no
5
obligation to independently review the record for error. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th. at
pp. 224-231.)
In Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th 216, the California Supreme Court held that
Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738 procedures do not apply in
appeals from the denial of a section 1172.6 postjudgment petition. (Delgadillo, at pp.
224-226.) Thus, we need not examine the entire record ourselves to look for arguable
grounds for reversal. (Id. at p. 228.) Because defendant’s counsel filed a brief raising no
issues, and defendant was given an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief but
declined, we may dismiss the appeal as abandoned. (Id. at p. 232.) “Independent review
in Wende appeals consumes substantial judicial resources,” and “[t]he state . . . has an
interest in an ‘economical and expeditious resolution’ of an appeal from a decision that is
‘presumptively accurate and just.’” (Id. at p. 229.)
We, however, have discretion to conduct Wende review even when it is not
required. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.) This case does not call for us to
exercise our discretion to independently examine the record for arguable issues, and
decline to exercise our discretion to independently examine the record. Accordingly, we
dismiss the appeal as abandoned. (Delgadillo, at p. 232.)
6
IV.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS CODRINGTON J. We concur:
McKINSTER Acting P. J.
RAPHAEL J.
7
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court dismissed the appeal as abandoned because the defendant failed to file a supplemental brief after appointed counsel filed a brief raising no issues in an appeal from the denial of a Penal Code section 1172.6 petition.
Issues
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the defendant's section 1172.6 petition for resentencing.
Whether the procedures set forth in People v. Wende and Anders v. California apply to appeals from the denial of a section 1172.6 petition.
Disposition. dismissed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“In Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th 216, the California Supreme Court held that Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738 procedures do not apply in appeals from the denial of a section 1172.6 postjudgment petition.”