WPC7 f%a{tE&u =lY `Ca}h:I ;J?̀8;Sq>R$X=Q4 )Ϻk$AOIl㛣pB{#H|ۓin3;%Mm]TQB #?JV1o8|?EãWӔ,Q'= 3kZD.[.>f=?'9\ۏ{?}TU г~,KAX/G m,Z6l5yW 6&&rĒeoR9x䚻czL~. o.2qs $ a)\ف;UP;j2O5 Z3$\]Qm1Cڝ!q}˚ܙ.uj.8oHP tl _ +bMK2Ek P7 (J‹Y*&z_.o_/H3# U Nq % 0] ^ " w. 42 F U mW n 0D. 0Njjjjjjjjjj B 0HP LaserJet 1200 Series PCL 60(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX>$FDAP DefaultXX뵥. .-C0Wp3|xU  $XX    1    _XXԀNotethatundertheproposedrevisionoftherulesgoverningcriminalappeals  (currentlyunderstudybytheJudicialCouncil),rule31(d)willberenumberedasrule30(b)(2).  Itisnotclearif/whentheproposedruleschangeswilltakeplace.Iftherenumberedruleis  enacted,theciteshouldbetotherenumberedrule.(#$  0    $XX    2    _XXԀNotethatundertheproposedrevisionoftherulesgoverningcriminalappeals  (currentlyunderstudybytheJudicialCouncil),rule31(d)willberenumberedasrule30(b)(2).  Itisnotclearif/whentheproposedruleschangeswilltakeplace.Iftherenumberedruleis  enacted,theciteshouldbetotherenumberedrule.mailto:julio@fdap.org.(O$  $XX    3    _ԀXXNotethatundertheproposedrevisionoftherulesgoverningcriminalappeals  (currentlyunderstudybytheJudicialCouncil),rule31(d)willberenumberedasrule30(b)(2).  Itisnotclearif/whentheproposedruleschangeswilltakeplace.Iftherenumberedruleis  enacted,theciteshouldbetotherenumberedrule.  d(;(3$ !XX      0   !XX  _@  FIRSTDISTRICTAPPELLATE_PROJECT _Ԉ  @% %  WENDEBRIEFSINGUILTYPLEAAPPEALS  @# (November2002)   DearPanelAttorney:      Youhavebeenappointedtoaguiltypleaappealcase.Althoughtherearesome   possibleissuestolookinto,itisalsopossiblethatthecasemighteventuallyresultina   Wendebrief.Foryourinformation,weareenclosingthisshortmemowhichdiscusses   someaspectsofWendeprocedureinguiltypleaappeals.     Specifically,thereissometimesconfusiononthepartofpractitionersaboutwhat  istheappropriatelanguagefortheStatementofAppealabilityandfortheArgument  section,invarioustypesofguiltypleaappeals.Thismemonotescertaintypesofappeals  (i.e.,appealswitharangeofdifferentNoticesofAppeal),andpresentssamplelanguage  forthesectionsoftheWendebriefnotedabove.Thematerialsalsocontainasample  attorneydeclarationinWendeappeals.Whileyoucertainlydonotneedtousetheprecise  languagenotedinthesematerials,youshouldchecktoseewhichtypeofNOAyour  appealcontainsandshouldmakesurethatwhateverlanguageyoudouseconveysthekey  pointsnotedinthesamplelanguageforthattypeofNOA.    EvenifyourguiltypleaappealisnotaWende,thesematerialscanbehelpfulto  youbecauseitisimportantineverycasetohaveanaccurateStatementofAppealability.  Thus,evenifyouaregoingtobriefanissueyoumaywanttorefertothesample   StatementsofAppealabilityinthesematerialstobesurethattheStatementinyourbrief ! correctlydescribesthepostureoftheappeal. "   IfyourNOAdoesnotmatchoneofthescenariosabove,orifyouhaveanygeneral $  questions,pleasefeelfreetocontactyourFDAPbuddyforadviceaboutanyofthis. % ! YourbuddycanalsosendyousamplesofafullWendebrief,includingasampleWende &!" lettertotheclient.Also,pleaserememberthatthedecisiontofileaWendebriefshould '"# bediscussedwithyourFDAPbuddybeforeactuallyfilingthebrief. (#$   Ifyouwouldliketoreceiveanemailedversionofthesematerials,pleaseemailto *%& JulioMolinainourofficeat4 zO  5  julio@fdap.org.6 O   7 9 ԀHewillreplytoyouremailandsendan +&' attachmentofthesematerials(inWordPerfect). ,'(  -() @``" TABLEOFCONTENTS  _NOA_ԀSCENARIOS...........................................................................1  0   1.StandardGuiltyPlea_NOA_Ԁ(i.e.,withboxestocheck)that (#(#   haseithersentencingand/orPC1538.5boxchecked     (butnotanycertificateissues)................................................1   0   2. StandardGuiltyPlea_NOA_Ԁ(i.e.,withboxestocheck)that (#(#   haseithersentencingand/orPC1538.5boxchecked,     andhascertificateboxcheckedanddid     receiveatimelycertificateofprobablecause......................2     0   3. StandardGuiltyPlea_NOA_Ԁ(i.e.,withboxestocheck)that(#(#   haseithersentencingand/orPC1538.5boxchecked,    andhascertificateboxcheckedanddidnotreceivea    timelycertificateofprobablecause.......................................3    X   4.StandardGuiltyPlea_NOA_Ԁ(i.e.,withboxestocheck)    thathasonlycertificateissuesboxcheckedanddid    receiveatimelycertificate.....................................................5  0   5.GuiltyPlea_NOA_Ԁwhichjuststatesthattheappealis(#(#   "fromthejudgmentofconvictionandsentence."...............6    6Anyguiltypleaappealwheretherecordshowsthatappellant #   signedanappealwaiver........................................................7 ~$  SAMPLESTANDARD_NOA_ԀFORM............................................10 x'"# SAMPLEATTORNEYDECLARATION..................................11 t)$%  (continuednextpage)  p+&'  n-() Ї @``" TABLEOFCONTENTS  @% (continued)   SAMPLECLIENTLETTER.............................................................12   SOMEGENERALCONSIDERATIONS.........................................13     A.Determiningwhetherissuesrequireacertificateof       ` probablecause............................................................13     B.Whethertofilea_Wende_Ԁbriefwhenthetrialcourt      ` hasgrantedacertificateofprobablecause................14       8Xdd8@kk$_NOA_ԀSCENARIOS    Inmanyguiltypleaappealstheappellantusesa"standard"noticeofappealform  (orsomevariationofit)whichcontainsboxesfortheappellanttocheckoneboxisfor  sentencingorotherpostpleaproceedings,oneboxisfor_Pen.Code_Ԁ1538.5suppression  motions,andoneboxisforchallengestotheplea(whichrequireacertificateofprobable   causefromthetrialjudge).Asampleofthisstandardformisattachedtothesematerials.   Anumberofthescenariosdiscussedbelowrefertothisstandardform. 򀀀   0   1.StandardGuiltyPlea_NOA_Ԁ(i.e.,withboxestocheck)thathaseithersentencing   and/orPC1538.5boxchecked(butnotanycertificateissues) (#(#   A.Statementof_Appealability_    8  8`   Thisisanappealfollowingapleaofguilty[nocontest],  raisingsentencingissues[and/or:suppressionissuesunder  PenalCode1538.5],andisauthorizedbyCaliforniaRules  ofCourt,rule31(d).   #  1      ` x` x       B.Argument  8  8`    󀀀PursuanttoPeoplev._Wende_(1979)25Cal.3d436,this  courtisrequestedtoindependentlyreviewtherecordon  appealinordertodeterminewhetheritcontainsanyarguable  sentencingissuesorotherpostplea[and_Pen.Code_Ԁ1538.5]   issues.!` x` x 8  8`   Asnotedbythecourtin_Wende_(25Cal.3dat441442): # "Weconcludethat[Andersv.California(1967)386U.S.738] $  requiresthecourttoconductareviewoftheentirerecord % ! wheneverappointedcounselsubmitsabriefwhichraisesno &!" specificissuesordescribestheappealasfrivolous.This  obligationistriggeredbyreceiptofsuchabrieffromcounsel  anddoesnotdependonthesubsequentreceiptofabrieffrom  thedefendantpersonally."The_Wende_procedurewasupheld  bytheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtinSmithv.Robbins  (2000)528U.S.259.  ` x` x 8  8`    InPeoplev.Jones(1995)4Cal.4th1102,1105,thecourt   heldthatonceaguiltypleaappealisoperativeastoanynon   certificateissues,itisvalidastoall_noncertificate_Ԁissues:    "Where,ashere,anappellanthasinfactcompliedwithrule   31(d)inhisnoticeofappeal,theruledoesnotrestrictthe   _cognizability_Ԁonappealofadditional,unspecified   _noncertificate_Ԁissuesorcategoriesofissues."  ` x` x 0   2. StandardGuiltyPlea_NOA_Ԁ(i.e.,withboxestocheck)thathaseithersentencing  and/orPC1538.5boxchecked,andhascertificateboxcheckedanddid  receiveatimelycertificateofprobablecause. (#(#   A.Statementof_Appealability_   8  0`   Thisisanappealfollowingapleaofguilty[nocontest].The  appellantreceivedacertificateofprobablecausetoappeal.(Citeto  record)Inaddition,theNoticeofAppealalsoraisessentencing[or:  suppressionissuesunderPenalCode1538.5].Thisappealis  authorizedbyPenalCode1237.5.` `    B.Argument "    ` 8  8`   PursuanttoPeoplev._Wende_(1979)25Cal.3d436,this % ! courtisrequestedtoindependentlyreviewtherecordon &!" appealinordertodeterminewhetheritcontainsanyarguable '"# issues.(#$` x` x 8  8`   Asnotedbythecourtin_Wende_(25Cal.3dat441442): *%& "Weconcludethat[Andersv.California(1967)386U.S.738] +&' requiresthecourttoconductareviewoftheentirerecord  wheneverappointedcounselsubmitsabriefwhichraisesno  specificissuesordescribestheappealasfrivolous.This  obligationistriggeredbyreceiptofsuchabrieffromcounsel  anddoesnotdependonthesubsequentreceiptofabrieffrom  thedefendantpersonally."The_Wende_procedurewasupheld   bytheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtinSmithv.Robbins   (2000)528U.S.259.  ` x` x  8  8`   InPeoplev._Hoffard_(1995)10Cal.4th1170,1174,1177   78,thecourtheldthatonceacertificateofprobablecauseis   grantedastoanyissue,theappealisoperativeastoallother   cognizableissues:"Nothinginsection1237.5indicatesthe   defendantmustspecify,andthetrialcourtcertifyas   _nonfrivolous_,eachissuetoberaisedonappeal....Section  1237.5doesnotexpresslylimittheissuesthatmayberaised  onappealonceacertificateofprobablecausehasbeen  obtained....Section1237.5doesnotrestrictthescopeof  inquiryintoacognizableerroronceacertificatehasbeen  issued."` x` x    C.Notetopractitioner: Pleaseseediscussiononpage14,below,concerning  whethertofilea_Wende_Ԁbriefwhenthetrialcourthasissuedacertificateofprobable  cause.   0   3. StandardGuiltyPlea_NOA_Ԁ(i.e.,withboxestocheck)thathaseithersentencing  and/orPC1538.5boxchecked,andhascertificateboxcheckedanddidnot   receiveatimelycertificateofprobablecause. !(#(#    A.Statementof_Appealability_ $   8  8`   Thisisanappealfollowingapleaofguilty[nocontest], &!" raisingsentencingissues[and/or:suppressionissuesunder '"#  PenalCode1538.5],andisauthorizedbyCaliforniaRules (#$ ofCourt,rule31(d).   #  2      򀀀 Appellantalsosoughttoraiseissues   relatingtothevalidityoftheplea(Citeto_NOA_Ԁintherecord),  butappellantdidnotreceiveacertificateofprobablecauseas  tothoseissues(Citetorecordifthereisadenialofthe_COPC_  intherecord).However,thisappealisoperativeastoany  noncertificateissues.(SeePeoplev.Jones(1995)10Cal.   4th1102)  ` x` x     B.Argument   8  8`    󀀀PursuanttoPeoplev._Wende_(1979)25Cal.3d436,this   courtisrequestedtoindependentlyreviewtherecordon   appealinordertodeterminewhetheritcontainsanyarguable   sentencingissuesorotherpostplea[and_Pen.Code_Ԁ1538.5]   issues.` x` x 8  8`   Asnotedbythecourtin_Wende_(25Cal.3dat441442):  "Weconcludethat[Andersv.California(1967)386U.S.738]  requiresthecourttoconductareviewoftheentirerecord  wheneverappointedcounselsubmitsabriefwhichraisesno  specificissuesordescribestheappealasfrivolous.This  obligationistriggeredbyreceiptofsuchabrieffromcounsel  anddoesnotdependonthesubsequentreceiptofabrieffrom  thedefendantpersonally."The_Wende_procedurewasupheld  bytheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtinSmithv.Robbins  (2000)528U.S.259. ` x` x 8  8`    InPeoplev.Jones(1995)4Cal.4th1102,1105,thecourt   heldthatonceaguiltypleaappealisoperativeastoanynon ! certificateissues,itisvalidastoall_noncertificate_Ԁissues: " "Where,ashere,anappellanthasinfactcompliedwithrule # 31(d)inhisnoticeofappeal,theruledoesnotrestrictthe $  _cognizability_Ԁonappealofadditional,unspecified % ! _noncertificate_Ԁissuesorcategoriesofissues."&!"` x` x Ї 0   4.StandardGuiltyPlea_NOA_Ԁ(i.e.,withboxestocheck)thathasonlycertificate  issuesboxcheckedanddidreceiveatimelycertificate.(#(#   A.Statementof_Appealability_   8  8`   Thisisanappealfollowingapleaofguilty[nocontest].   Theappellantreceivedacertificateofprobablecauseto   appeal.(Citetorecord)ThisappealisauthorizedbyPenal   Code1237.5.  ` x` x     B.Argument    8  8`   PursuanttoPeoplev._Wende_(1979)25Cal.3d436,this   courtisrequestedtoindependentlyreviewtherecordon  appealinordertodeterminewhetheritcontainsanyarguable  issues.` x` x 8  8`   Asnotedbythecourtin_Wende_(25Cal.3dat441442):  "Weconcludethat[Andersv.California(1967)386U.S.738]  requiresthecourttoconductareviewoftheentirerecord  wheneverappointedcounselsubmitsabriefwhichraisesno  specificissuesordescribestheappealasfrivolous.This  obligationistriggeredbyreceiptofsuchabrieffromcounsel  anddoesnotdependonthesubsequentreceiptofabrieffrom  thedefendantpersonally."The_Wende_procedurewasupheld  bytheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtinSmithv.Robbins  (2000)528U.S.259. ` x` x 8  8`   InPeoplev._Hoffard_(1995)10Cal.4th1170,1174,1177 " 78,thecourtheldthatonceacertificateofprobablecauseis # grantedastoanyissue,theappealisoperativeastoallother $  cognizableissues:"Nothinginsection1237.5indicatesthe % ! defendantmustspecify,andthetrialcourtcertifyas &!" _nonfrivolous_,eachissuetoberaisedonappeal....Section '"# 1237.5doesnotexpresslylimittheissuesthatmayberaised (#$ onappealonceacertificateofprobablecausehasbeen )$% obtained....Section1237.5doesnotrestrictthescopeof *%& inquiryintoacognizableerroronceacertificatehasbeen +&' issued."` x` x    C.Notetopractitioner: Pleaseseediscussiononpage14,below,concerning  whethertofilea_Wende_Ԁbriefwhenthetrialcourthasissuedacertificateofprobable  cause.    X 0   5.GuiltyPlea_NOA_Ԁwhichjuststatesthattheappealis"fromthejudgmentof   convictionandsentence." (#(#   A.Statementof_Appealability_   8  8`    Thenoticeofappealinthiscasestatesinteraliathatthe  appealisfromthesentence.Accordinglythisappealis  authorizedbyCaliforniaRulesofCourt , rule31(d).  #  3      ׀(See  Peoplev.Jones(1995)10Cal.4th1102,111112,holdingthat  underrule31(d)thenoticeofappealneedonlyspecifythe  typeofissueandnotthespecificclaimoferror. )` x` x   B.Argument   8  8`   PursuanttoPeoplev._Wende_(1979)25Cal.3d436,this  courtisrequestedtoindependentlyreviewtherecordon  appealinordertodeterminewhetheritcontainsanyarguable  sentencingissuesorotherpostpleaissues. ` x` x 8  8`   Asnotedbythecourtin_Wende_(25Cal.3dat441442): " "Weconcludethat[Andersv.California(1967)386U.S.738] # requiresthecourttoconductareviewoftheentirerecord $  wheneverappointedcounselsubmitsabriefwhichraisesno % ! specificissuesordescribestheappealasfrivolous.This &!" obligationistriggeredbyreceiptofsuchabrieffromcounsel  anddoesnotdependonthesubsequentreceiptofabrieffrom  thedefendantpersonally."The_Wende_procedurewasupheld  bytheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtinSmithv.Robbins  (2000)528U.S.259. ` x` x 8  8`    InPeoplev.Jones(1995)4Cal.4th1102,1105,thecourt   heldthatonceaguiltypleaappealisoperativeastoanynon   certificateissues,itisvalidastoall_noncertificate_Ԁissues:   "Where,ashere,anappellanthasinfactcompliedwithrule    31(d)inhisnoticeofappeal,theruledoesnotrestrictthe   _cognizability_Ԁonappealofadditional,unspecified   _noncertificate_Ԁissuesorcategoriesofissues."  ` x` x    C.Notetopractitioner: InPeoplev.Lloyd(1998)17Cal.4th658,thecourt  upheldasvalidanoticeofappealwhichsimplystatedthattheappealwasfromthe   sentence,andalsohadthenotation Rule31(d).Thecourtheldthatanoticeofappeal  mustbe liberallyconstruedinfavorofitssufficiency,andthatthereis norequirement  thatitmustmaketherequisitestatementofbasisexpresslyratherthanimpliedly.(17  Cal.4that665.)Wearenotawareofanyopinionwhichhasdealtwithanoticeofappeal  whichsimplyspecifies sentence,buttheliberalconstructionruleandthediscussionin  Lloydwouldseemtoindicatethatsuchanoticeofappealisoperative.Todate,thecourt  hasacceptedwithoutcomment_Wende_briefswithsuchanoticeofappeal.   6.Anyguiltypleaappealwheretherecordshowsappellantsignedanappeal    waiver.    A.Statementof_Appealability_ !    `  "    ` Usetheappropriatestatementof_appealability_Ԁforwhatevertypeof_NOA_ # (thescenariosnotedabove)wasfiledinthecase, thenaddthefollowingparagraphs: $   8  8`   Appellantwaivedhisappealrightswhenheenteredhis &!" pleainthiscase.(Citetorecord).'"#` x` x 8  8`    Adefendantmaywaivetherighttoappealaspartofa )$% pleabargainwherethewaiverisknowing,intelligent,and *%& voluntary.(Peoplev._Panizzon_(1996)13Cal.4th68,80.)A +&' broadorgeneralwaiverofappealrightsordinarilyincludes  erroroccurringbeforebutnotafterthewaiverbecausethe  defendantcouldnotknowinglyandintelligentlywaivethe  righttoappealanyunforeseenorunknownfutureerror.(Inre  UriahR.(1999)70Cal.4th1152,1157.)Thus,awaiverof  appealrightsdoesnotapplyto' possiblefutureerror[that]is   outsidethedefendant'scontemplationandknowledgeatthe   timethewaiverismade.'(Peoplev._Panizzon_,supra,13   Cal.4thatp.85;seealsoPeoplev._Sherrick_(1993)19   _Cal.App_.4th657,659;Peoplev.Vargas(1993)13   _Cal.App_.4th1653,1662.)(Peoplev._Mumm_(2002)98   _Cal.App_.4th812,815.) ` x` x 8  8`    TwodivisionsoftheFirstAppellateDistricthavealso   explainedtheparametersofappellatereviewwhentherehas  beenanappealwaiver:Peoplev.Olson(1989)216  _Cal.App_.3d601,604,fn.2[Div.5;holdingthatthewaiver  doesnot preventanappealwherethesentenceimposedis  notinaccordancewiththenegotiatedagreementorother  sentencingerroroccurs],andPeoplev.Charles(1985)171  _Cal.App_.3d552,563564[Div.4;holdingthattherecord  mustshow thatthewaiver[ofappealrights]wasfree,  knowingandintelligent....].` x` x 8  8`    ` x` x 8  8`   Accordingly,intheargumentsectionbelow,appellant  requeststhatthiscourtindependentlyreviewtheappellate  recordtodetermineiftheappealwaiverwasfree,knowing  andintelligent,andtodetermineifsentencingerroroccurred  inthiscase.  ` x` x    B.Argument #  8  8`   PursuanttoPeoplev._Wende_(1979)25Cal.3d436,this % ! courtisrequestedtoindependentlyreviewtherecordon &!" appealinordertodeterminewhetheritcontainsarguable '"# issues.(#$` x` x  8  8`   Morespecifically,asnotedaboveappellantwaivedhis *%& appealrightswhenheenteredhispleainthiscase.(Citeto8@  8@ +&' record).PursuanttothecasesnotedintheStatementof  _Appealability_Ԁabove,appellantthereforerequeststhatthis  courtindependentlyreviewtheappellaterecordtodetermine  iftheappealwaiverwasfree,knowingandintelligent,andto  determineifsentencingerroroccurredinthiscasewhichis  notencompassedbythewaiver.  ` x` x @  SAMPLE"STANDARD"NOTICEOFAPPEALFORM        @aa SAMPLEATTORNEYDECLARATIONIN_WENDE_APPEAL      DECLARATION    v  1.IamanactivememberoftheCaliforniaStateBar,andIamappointedcounsel   onappealforappellant.     2.Ihavethoroughlyreviewedtheentirerecordonappealinthiscase.      3.Baseduponmyreviewofthiscase,Ihavedeterminedthatabriefpursuantto   Peoplev._Wende_isappropriate.     4.Ihavewrittentoappellantathislastknownaddressandadvisedhimthata  _Wende_briefwouldbefiledinthiscase.    5.Ihaveadvisedappellantthathemaypersonallyfileasupplementalbriefinthis  caseraisinganyissueswhichhewishestocalltothecourtsattention.    6.Iremainavailableforanyfurtherbriefingthiscourtmayrequest;however,I  haveinformedappellantthathemayrequestthecourttorelievemeascounselinthis  case.    7.Iamsendingappellantacopyofthisbrief. ! IdeclareunderpenaltyofperjuryofthelawsofthestateofCaliforniathattheforegoing % ! istrueandcorrect.ThisdeclarationwasexecutedatSanFrancisco,California,on '"# __________________.   h      p ___________________ )$%    `     h      p CounselforAppellant +&'  @ SAMPLECLIENTLETTER,INCASESWHERE  @llYOUHAVEDETERMINEDTHATA_WENDE_ԀBRIEFWILLBEFILED.     Dear[Client]:    Iwrotetoyouearliertoexplainthatitispossiblethatwewillnotbeabletoargue   anyissuesinyourappeal.[Insertappropriateexplanationsofparticularissuestheclient   wantsraised,andwhytheyarenotarguable.]Sincethen,Ihavedonefurtherresearchand   haveconsultedwithanotherlawyerattheFirstDistrictAppellateProject.Thatlawyer    hasagreedwithmethattherearenoarguableissuesinyourcase.     Inthissituation,Iamrequiredtofilethetypeofbriefdescribedinthecaseof   Peoplev._Wende_(1979)25Cal.3d436.A _Wende_brieftellstheCourtofAppealthe   historyofyourcase,andsummarizestheevidencegiven[atthepreliminaryhearing][in   theprobationreport][inanyotherpartoftherecord.]ItthenaskstheCourttoreviewthe  recordforitself,todetermineifthereareanyarguableissues.TheCourtisrequiredto  carryoutthisreview.Ifitfindsanyissueswhichitthinksmaybearguable,itwillaskme  tobriefthem.    WhenIfilea_Wende_brief,youcanasktheCourtofAppealtohavemereplaced  withanotherlawyer.YoushouldbeawarethattheCourtofAppealdoesnotusually  replacealawyersimplybecausea_Wende_briefhasbeenfiled.Butyouhavetherightto  ask,andyoucandosobywritingtotheclerkoftheCourtofAppeal,FirstAppellate  District,Division[number],at350_McAllister_ԀStreet,SanFranciscoCA94102.Besure  torefertoyourcasebynameandnumberinyourletter:Peoplev.[name],_A[xxxxx_].    Youalsohavetherighttofileasupplementalbriefofyourown,makingany  argumentsyouthinkIshouldhavemadeinyourcase.Youcandothisevenifyoudonot   asktohavemereplacedasyourlawyer.Youwillhave30daysfromthedateIfilemy ! _Wende_Ԁbrieftofileasupplementalbrief.Iintendtofilemy_Wende_briefon[date],so " yourdeadlineis[date].YoushouldsendyoursupplementalbrieftotheCourtatthesame # addressasabove.IamsendingyouacopyofthebriefwhichIwillbefilingon[date.] $    Iregretnotfindinganyarguableissues,buttheCourtwillnowbereviewingthe &!" recordinyourcaseandwewillseeiftheyfindanyissueswhichtheywantmetoargue. '"# IllletyouknowwhentheCourtacts. (#$    +&' @  SOMEGENERALCONSIDERATIONS      A.Determiningwhetherissuesrequireacertificateofprobablecause.     Ifyouarethinkingofraisinganissue,insteadoffilinga_Wende_brief,itwillbe   necessaryforyoutodeterminewhetherornottheissuerequiresacertificateofprobable   cause.Thedistinctionbetweencertificateand_noncertificate_Ԁissuesisnotalwaysclear.   Particularlyincaseswheretherehasbeenapleaagreementfora topratherthanfora   fixedsentence,theCourtsofAppealaredividedastowhenachallengetoasentenceat    orbelowthattopisachallengetothepleaagreement,requiringacertificate,andwhenit   issimplyapostpleaclaim,whichdoesnotrequireacertificate.Theissueiscurrently   pendingbeforetheSupremeCourt.     Peoplev._Panizzon_(1996)13Cal.4th68didnotanswerthequestion,asit   involved(andrejected)a_noncertificate_Ԁchallengetoafixedsentence.Asofthiswriting  (October2002),theCaliforniaSupremeCourthasgrantedreviewinPeoplev._Buttram_,  S103761,formerlyat94_Cal.App_.4th1249,inwhichtheFourthDistrict,DivisionThree  heldthatabargainforamaximum_estopped_ԀDfromcomplainingaboutthemaximum  sentence,sincehehadagreedtoit.      TheCourthasalsograntedreview,onagrantandholdbasis,intwoothercases.  InPeoplev.Chico,S104024[formerlyat94_Cal.App_.4th867]theFirstDistrict,Division  Fourheldthatapleaagreementforamaximumsentencewasanagreementforan  exerciseofdiscretionwithinthatmaximum.TheCourtofAppealconcludedthatDwas  freetochallenge thesentencingcalculuswithoutchallengingthepleaagreement,and  thuswithoutacertificateofprobablecause.InPeoplev._Schlager_,S104634,[formerlyat  95_Cal.App_.4th259],theThirdDistrictheldthatDneededacertificatetoraiseasection  654challengetotwocounts,wherethemaximumtermtowhichhehadagreed depended   inpartonacalculationthatsentenceddefendantseparatelyandconsecutivelyforeachof ! thetwochargesthathenowchallenges.... " Ѐ #   Pendingadecisionin_Buttram_,someopinionsconcerningthe_cognizability_Ԁof $  sentencingargumentsinpleaagreementcasesarePeoplev.Foster(2002)101 % ! _Cal.App_.4th247[_pet.rev.pending_]andPeoplev.Young(2000)77_Cal.App_.4th827 &!" [_rev.den_.],bothofwhichholdthatDcannotarguethatasentencetowhichhehasagreed '"# iscruelandunusual,withoutacertificate.SeealsoPeoplev.Cole(2001)88 (#$ _Cal.App_.4th850[rev.den.];Peoplev.Stewart(2001)89_Cal.App_.4th1209[rev.den.] )$%   _FDAP_Ԁhaswrittenmaterialsonwhichissuesrequireacertificate;whichissuesdo +&' not;andwhichissuesarewaivedevenwithacertificate.Thesematerialsarecurrently  beingupdated;thelastrevisionwasin1995.     B.Whethertofilea_Wende_Ԁbriefwhenthetrialcourthasgranteda  certificateofprobablecause.     InDelgadov.Lewis(9thCir.2000)223F.3d976,981)the9thCircuitstated : To   representtoanappellatecourt[byfilinga_Wende_brief]thattherewerenononfrivolous   issuesafterastatetrialcourthadissuedaprobablecausecertificationtothecontrary    wouldbeunusualinanycase;...Thisbroadlanguagemightseemtoindicatethatwhere   thetrialcourtissuesacertificateofprobablecausetheissueshouldgenerallybebriefed   onthemerits.     However,wedonotbelievethatthislanguageinDelgadomeanttooverturnthe   clearrequirementthatappellatecounselmustexercisehis/herindependentjudgmentin  determiningwhatissuesshouldberaisedonappeal.(See,e.g.,Jonesv.Barnes(1983)  103_S.Ct_.3308,3314: Forjudgestosecondguessreasonableprofessionaljudgmentsand  imposeonappointedcounseladutytoraiseevery_colorable_claimsuggestedbyaclient  would_disserve_Ԁtheverygoalofvigorousandeffectiveadvocacythatunderlies[Andersv.  California(1967)386U.S.738.];Peoplev.Davis(1987)189_Cal.App_.3d1177,  1188n.7: Thedefendantsappellatecounselrightfullyassertsthattheresponsibilityfor  determiningallquestionsofstrategyandtacticsishersandhersalone.)    InDelgadoitself,thequotedlanguagesimplypointsoutthatitshouldbean   unusualcaseinwhicha_Wende_isfiledwheretherewasacertificategranted;thecourt  doesnotstatethata_Wende_briefcouldneverbefiledinthatsituation.Further,  immediatelyfollowingthelanguagequotedabove,theDelgadocourtwentontonotethat  therewereverystrongarguableissuesinthecase.     Therehavecertainlybeen_Wende_appealsincaseswheretrialcourtshaveissued " certificates;inthosecases,uponcloseexaminationtheappellateattorneyhassimply # foundtheissuenonarguable.Thus,wesuggestthatwhereacertificateofprobablecause $  hasbeenissued,counselshouldgiveweighttothatfact.Inlookingattheissue,if % ! counselfindsitaclosecall,theissueshouldprobablybebriefed.However,iftheissueis &!" clearlynotarguable,counselshouldfilea_Wende_brief.Inthebrief,counselshouldmake '"# suretonotethatthetrialcourtissuedacertificateofprobablecause. (#$