People v. Snider CA4/3

Filed 11/24/20 P. v. Snider CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G058947

v. (Super. Ct. No. 05HF0548)

JAMES PAUL SNIDER, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Kimberly Menninger, Judge. Affirmed. Laura P. Gordon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

We appointed counsel to represent James Paul Snider on appeal. Counsel filed a brief that set forth the facts of the case. Counsel did not argue against her client but advised the court she found no issues to argue on Snider’s behalf. Counsel filed a brief following the procedures outlined in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). The court in Wende explained a Wende brief is one that sets forth a summary of proceedings and facts but raises no specific issues. Under these circumstances, the court must conduct an independent review of the entire record. When the appellant himself raises specific issues in a Wende proceeding, we must expressly address them in our opinion and explain why they fail. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 120, 124. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), to assist the court with its independent review, counsel provided the court with information as to issues that might arguably support an appeal. Counsel raised the following issues: (1) whether the trial court erred by denying Snider’s petition for relief pursuant to Penal 1 Code section 1170.95 ; (2) whether the court erred by failing to appoint counsel to represent Snider in his petition; (3) whether the court should have granted the relief requested in Snider’s motion to vacate his conviction based on newly discovered evidence and/or recall his sentence pursuant to section 1170.91; and (4) whether the trial court erred by failing to appoint counsel to represent Snider in his motion to vacate his conviction based on newly discovered evidence and/or recall his sentence pursuant to section 1170.91. We gave Snider 30 days to file written argument on his own behalf. Thirty days have passed, and Snider has not filed any written argument.