People v. Robinson CA3, C092166

Robinson was convicted in 1996 of multiple attempted murders, assaults with a firearm, shooting into an occupied vehicle, and felon-in-possession; original aggregate term was 34 years 8 months.
This court previously vacated parts of the sentence and remanded for resentencing to determine concurrency/consecutivity and to impose a required consecutive term on one count.
On remand (1997) the trial court again imposed the same aggregate term; later CDCR flagged errors and that a required consecutive term had not been imposed.
At a 2019 resentencing the trial court exercised post- SB 620/1393 discretion, struck certain 10-year firearm enhancements, reassessed sentences, and reduced Robinson’s aggregate term to 26 years; Robinson appealed.
Appointed counsel filed a Wende-type brief (saying no arguable issues); Robinson filed a supplemental pro se brief challenging the underlying convictions (not the resentencing) and later reported released in Oct 2020.
The majority held Wende procedures do not apply to appeals from denials of postconviction relief and concluded it lacked authority to consider the represented appellant’s pro se supplemental arguments; the appeal was dismissed as abandoned. Judge Duarte dissented, arguing the court should review Robinson’s pro se claims on the merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Applicability of Wende to this appeal	Wende only applies to first appeals as of right for indigent criminal defendants	Robinson’s counsel asked for Wende review; Robinson filed pro se supplemental brief	Wende does not apply to appeals from denials of postconviction relief; this is not a first appeal as of right, so Wende procedure unavailable
Whether court may consider pro se supplemental briefs by a represented appellant	Courts should not entertain pro per filings by a represented appellant; appellate filings must be by counsel	Robinson (pro se) submitted substantive supplemental briefing that counsel invited	Majority: pro se supplemental filings by a represented appellant generally cannot be considered; such appeals are treated as abandoned
Authority to adopt Wende-like review in non-Wende appeals	Some CA appellate panels have used supervisory power to consider pro se supplements in non-Wende contexts	Robinson relies on such decisions and his self-filed brief	Majority: courts lack authority to extend Wende protections; only CA Supreme Court may change the rule; other panels’ practices are not binding
Disposition of the appeal	Counsel reported no arguable issues; thus court should dismiss or treat as abandoned	Robinson sought merits review of his substantive pro se claims attacking convictions	Court dismissed the appeal as abandoned; dissent would have reached the merits and affirmed on the merits

People v. Wende, [citation="25 Cal.3d 436"] (1979) (establishes Wende procedure for counsel reporting no arguable issues on first appeal as of right)
Martinez v. Court of Appeal of California, [citation="528 U.S. 152"] (2000) (no federal constitutional right to self-representation on appeal)
Clark v. Superior Court, [citation="3 Cal.4th 41"] (1992) (represented appellants may not present personal briefs on the merits)
In re Barnett, [citation="31 Cal.4th 466"] (2003) (pro se submissions by represented appellants are generally not filed or considered)
People v. Mattson, [citation="51 Cal.2d 777"] (1956) (historical rule refusing to recognize pro se filings by represented parties)
People v. Figueras, [citation="61 Cal.App.5th 111"] (2021) (illustrative of appellate decisions treating Wende procedures and non-Wende appeals; discussed by majority and dissent)