California Court of Appeal Jul 21, 2022 No. E078644Unpublished
Filed 7/21/22 P. v. Smith 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E078644
v. (Super.Ct.No. FSB05283)
WILLIAM SHAWN SMITH, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Cheryl C. Kersey,
Judge. Dismissed.
James M. Crawford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
INTRODUCTION
A jury convicted defendant and appellant William Shawn Smith of attempted
carjacking (Pen. Code,1 §§ 664, 215, count 1) and robbery (§ 211, count 2). A trial court
found true the allegations that he had two prior serious felony convictions and had served
two prior prison terms. (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 667.5, subd. (b).) It then sentenced him to
a total term of 25 years to life.
Twenty-five years later, defendant filed, in propria persona, an “Ex Parte Motion
that right is statutory, not constitutional. Thus, a defendant is not entitled to
Wende/Anders review in such an appeal. (See Serrano, at p. 501 [no Wende review for
denial of postconviction motion to vacate guilty plea pursuant to Pen. Code, § 1016.5].)
Because this appeal concerns a postjudgment proceeding in which there is no
constitutional right to counsel, defendant has no right to Wende/Anders review. While
we recognize that we retain discretion to conduct such review (People v. Cole (2020) 52
Cal.App.5th 1023, review granted October 14, 2020, S264278), we decline to do so in
this case. Neither defendant nor his counsel has raised any claim of error. Therefore, we
dismiss defendant’s appeal as abandoned. (Serrano, supra, 211 Cal.App.4th at pp. 503-
504.)
4
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
FIELDS J.
We concur:
MILLER Acting P. J.
SLOUGH J.
5
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court dismissed the defendant's appeal from the denial of a postjudgment motion because the defendant failed to raise any claims of error and is not entitled to Wende/Anders review in a postconviction proceeding.
Issues
Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion for repleader under Penal Code section 1473.6.
Whether a defendant is entitled to Wende/Anders review in an appeal from a postjudgment order.
Disposition. Dismissed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“We dismiss the appeal.”
“Because this appeal concerns a postjudgment proceeding in which there is no constitutional right to counsel, defendant has no right to Wende/Anders review.”
“Therefore, we dismiss defendant’s appeal as abandoned.”