P. v. Chinchilla
We appointed counsel to represent Byron Christopher Chinchilla on appeal. Counsel filed a brief that set forth the facts of the case. Counsel did not argue against her client but advised the court no issues were found to argue on his behalf. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, to assist the court with its independent review, counsel provided the court with information as to issues that might arguably support an appeal. Counsel raised the following two questions: (1) Was Chinchilla’s
Sixth Amendment right to counsel violated when trial counsel waived his own personal presence for the resentencing hearing, instead of appearing by telephone; and (2) was Chinchilla’s right to be present at a critical stage of the criminal proceedings against him violated by trial counsel’s waiver of Chinchilla’s presence.
We granted Chinchilla 30 days to file a supplemental brief. That time has passed, and he did not file a supplemental brief. We have reviewed the information counsel provided, and we have independently examined the record. We found no arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) The judgment is affirmed.
Comments on P. v. Chinchilla