Opinion
E081333
11-02-2023
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CARLOS ENRIQUE CASTANEDA, Defendant and Appellant.
Belinda Escobosa, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County No. FVI22001753. Charlie Hill, Jr., Judge. Appeal dismissed.
Belinda Escobosa, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
MENETREZ J.
Carlos Enrique Castaneda appeals from an order revoking his probation and imposing a previously suspended sentence of four years in state prison. Castaneda's appointed appellate counsel filed a brief raising no issues and asking that we independently review the record under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738. We gave Castaneda the opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he did not file a supplemental brief. Wende review is not required in an appeal from a postjudgment order in criminal proceedings (People v. Freeman (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 126, 132-133), and we decline to exercise our discretion to conduct an independent review of the entire record. (People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 232.) We therefore dismiss the appeal as abandoned. (People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496, 504.)
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
I concur: CODRINGTON J.
RAMIREZ, P.J.
I respectfully dissent. Our Supreme Court has afforded reviewing courts discretion with respect to the disposition of postconviction appeals in which appointed appellate counsel has filed a no-issues brief and defendant did not file a supplemental brief. (People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 232.) I would exercise that discretion to conduct an independent review of the record.