People v. Weisner, C095039

Defendant Frankie James Weisner pleaded no contest to second degree robbery (§ 211) and grand theft (§ 487, subd. (c)) and admitted personal firearm use (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)).
After an initial appeal was denied as untimely and trial court denied certificates of probable cause, Weisner filed a petition to reduce the grand theft conviction to a misdemeanor under § 1170.18; the trial court denied the petition.
Appointed appellate counsel filed a brief stating counsel found no arguable issues on appeal; Weisner filed a pro se supplemental brief raising multiple claims (breach of plea, ineffective assistance, Brady-type nondisclosure).
The Court of Appeal held the only cognizable issue on appeal was the denial of the resentencing petition and addressed whether Wende/Anders procedures or independent appellate review apply to appeals from denial of postconviction relief.
The majority concluded Wende/Anders review is not required for postconviction appeals, treated the appeal as abandoned when counsel reported no arguable issues, and dismissed the appeal; one justice dissented, arguing the court could and should consider the pro se supplemental brief under its supervisory power.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Applicability of Wende/Anders to appeals from denial of postconviction relief	People: Wende/Anders not required for postconviction appeals	Weisner: Wende protections should apply so court will review record for arguable issues	Court: Wende/Anders apply only to a criminal defendant's first appeal as of right; not required here
Must the appellate court independently review the record when counsel files a no-issue brief?	People: No independent review required; appeal may be deemed abandoned	Weisner: Court should review record for errors despite counsel's no-issue brief	Court: No obligation to review; appeal abandoned and dismissed
May a represented appellant file pro se supplemental briefs raising merits issues on appeal?	People: No right to self-representation on appeal; pro se merits filings generally not considered	Weisner: He may supplement the record and present arguments pro se	Court: No right to present pro se merits briefs; such filings are typically returned or stricken and not considered
Can the Court of Appeal use its supervisory power to consider pro se supplemental arguments in a non-Wende appeal?	People: Court lacks basis to extend Wende; supervisory power should not be used to override rules	Weisner: Court should exercise supervisory power to decide his pro se issues	Majority: Declines to exercise supervisory power; leaves change to Supreme Court. Dissent: Would exercise power and address pro se issues

People v. Wende, 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende procedures govern appointed counsel in a defendant's first appeal as of right)
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (procedure for appointed counsel to file no-merit brief in first appeal)
Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (no constitutional right to Anders/Wende beyond first appeal as of right)
In re Sade C., 13 Cal.4th 952 (Wende/Anders prophylaxis limited to first appeal; appellate review not required when counsel finds no arguable issues)
People v. Figueras, 61 Cal.App.5th 108 (postconviction appeals not subject to Wende; court treated as abandoned where no supplemental brief filed)
People v. Cole, 52 Cal.App.5th 1023 (discussing limits of extending Wende procedures to postconviction appeals)
In re Barnett, 31 Cal.4th 466 (pro se merits filings not permitted when counsel represents appellant on appeal)
People v. Mattson, 51 Cal.2d 777 (historical rule limiting consideration of pro se appellate filings by represented parties)
Martinez v. Court of Appeal, 528 U.S. 152 (Sixth Amendment self-representation right does not extend beyond conviction to appeals)
Conservatorship of Ben C., 40 Cal.4th 529 (reiterating limits on Anders/Wende obligations beyond first appeal)