Opinion
C088564
03-02-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SHATHA SALEH ALHUMAIDI, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. CRF201454602)
Defendant Shatha Saleh Alhumaidi appeals from the trial court's order modifying the terms of her probation to include an order for direct victim restitution. Her appointed counsel asked this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Defendant was informed of her right to file a supplemental brief and did not do so. We conclude she is not entitled to Wende review and dismiss the appeal as abandoned.
BACKGROUND
On March 18, 2015, defendant pleaded no contest to a single felony count and was placed on three years of formal probation with various terms and conditions. Several months later, the trial court revoked then reinstated defendant's probation.
Defendant was arrested in June 2017 in Yolo County Superior Court case No. 17-3481. Following her arrest, the trial court again revoked defendant's probation. The People subsequently dismissed Yolo County Superior Court case No. 17-3481, and in August 2018, the trial court reinstated defendant's probation but modified the terms of her probation.
On November 21, 2018, the trial court again modified the terms of defendant's probation. This time, the trial court ordered defendant to pay direct restitution to her victim in case No. 17-3481 as a term of her probation. Defendant appealed from that order.
In a subsequent hearing, in February 2019, the trial court set the amount of victim restitution at $6,840.
DISCUSSION
Review pursuant to Wende or its federal constitutional counterpart Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, is required only in the first appeal of right from a criminal conviction. (Pennsylvania v. Finley (1987) 481 U.S. 551, 555; Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529, 536-537; People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496, 500-501 (Serrano).)
The right to Anders/Wende review applies only at appellate proceedings where defendant has a previously established constitutional right to counsel. (Serrano, supra, 211 Cal.App.4th at p. 500; Conservatorship of Ben C, supra, 40 Cal.4th at pp. 536-537.) The constitutional right to counsel extends to the first appeal of right, and no further. (Serrano, at pp. 500-501.) While a criminal defendant has a right to appointed counsel in an appeal from an order after judgment affecting her substantial rights (Pen. Code, §§ 1237, 1240, subd. (a); Gov. Code, § 15421, subd. (c)), that right is statutory, not constitutional. Thus, defendant is not entitled to Wende 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].)
The appeal before us, "although originating in a criminal context, is not a first appeal of right from a criminal prosecution, because it is not an appeal from the judgment of conviction." (Serrano, supra, 211 Cal.App.4th at p. 501.) Applying Serrano here, defendant has no right to a Wende review of the trial court's order modifying the terms of her probation. Because neither defendant nor her counsel raise any claim of error in the criminal conviction, we must dismiss defendant's appeal as abandoned.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
/s/_________
Blease, Acting P. J. We concur: /s/_________
Duarte, J. /s/_________
Krause, J.