P. v. Gramshoward CA4/3
Defendant appeals from a postjudgment order finding that he violated the terms of his parole, and we appointed counsel to represent him. Following her analysis of potential appellate issues, appointed counsel informed us in her declaration that she consulted with a staff attorney at Appellate Defenders, Inc. Counsel then filed a brief pursuant to the procedures set forth in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. In that brief, counsel declined to identify potential appellate issues as suggested in Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738. Instead, she invited this court to conduct its required review of the record “unfettered by counsel’s prior thought processes.” We have now done exactly that.
Comments on P. v. Gramshoward CA4/3