People v. Hernandez CA3
C094540
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jan 14, 2022Background
- In 2010 Juan M. Hernandez pleaded no contest to felony receiving stolen property and felony possession of ammunition by a person prohibited from owning firearms.
- Proposition 47 (2014) created Penal Code section 1170.18, allowing resentencing petitions to reduce certain felonies to misdemeanors.
- On July 9, 2021 Hernandez filed a section 1170.18(f) petition to reduce his receiving-stolen-property conviction to a misdemeanor.
- The district attorney opposed the petition, arguing Hernandez was ineligible due to a prior conviction and sex-offender-registration status and, alternatively, that the stolen-property value was not shown to be under $950.
- The trial court denied the petition on July 15, 2021 "for reasons stated by D.A." Hernandez appealed; appointed counsel requested Wende review but Hernandez did not file a supplemental pro se brief.
- The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as abandoned; a concurring opinion argued that even a pro se supplemental brief by a represented appellant should not be considered and that dismissal is correct regardless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wende/Anders procedures govern appeals from denial of postconviction relief under §1170.18 | Court may treat appeal as abandoned where no pro se supplemental brief is filed; follow appellate precedent holding Wende not applicable | No supplemental brief filed (no argued position presented on Wende applicability) | Appeal dismissed as abandoned; court relied on authorities holding Wende/Anders procedures do not apply to appeals from postconviction-relief denials |
| Whether a represented appellant may supplement counsel's brief with a pro se supplemental brief and have it considered on appeal | Majority did not reach allowing pro se supplements; concurring judge argued courts should not consider pro se supplemental briefs and must dismiss regardless | Defendant did not file a supplemental brief; concurrence emphasized pro se submissions by represented appellants are not entitled to consideration | Majority dismissed for abandonment due to no supplemental brief; concurrence would dismiss in all such cases and rejected considering pro se supplemental briefs per existing Supreme Court precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Wende, 25 Cal.3d 436 (establishing appellate counsel’s duty to request record review for arguable issues)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. Supreme Court decision on appellate counsel’s duty to brief arguable issues)
- People v. Cole, 52 Cal.App.5th 1023 (appellate court held Wende/Anders procedures do not apply to appeals from postconviction-relief denials)
- People v. Figueras, 61 Cal.App.5th 108 (agreeing with Cole; dismissed appeal as abandoned where no supplemental brief filed)
- In re Barnett, 31 Cal.4th 466 (limits pro se participation on appeal; appellate briefs and motions must be filed by counsel)
- People v. Mattson, 51 Cal.2d 777 (pro se appellate filings by represented defendants are generally not considered)
- People v. Clark, 3 Cal.4th 41 (pro se filings by represented capital inmates are not permitted to supplement counsel’s briefs)
- Martinez v. Court of Appeal, 528 U.S. 152 (U.S. Supreme Court on limits to self-representation on appeal)