1

Filed 12/24/20 P. v. Mosqueda CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. FRANK G. MOSQUEDA,

Defenda nt and Appellant. C091240 (Super. Ct. No. 08F07848)

Appointed counsel for defendant, Frank G. Mosqueda , asked this court to review
the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. ( People v.
Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 ( Wende ) .) Because we find that defendant is not entitled to
Wende review, and has not raised an arguable issue in his supplemental brief, we dismiss
the appeal. ( People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496 ( Serrano ).)


### B ACKGROUND

In February 2010, following a court trial, the court convicted defendant of seven felonies, including attempted premediated murder , and found true numerous enhancement allegations

. For each of his convictions, except attempted murder, the trial
court sentenced defen dant to an aggregate, determinate term of 34 years in state prison.2

For defendant ’ s attempted murder conviction, the trial court sentenced defendant to an indeterminate term of life with the possibility of parole, plus another 14 years for a gun use and g reat bodily injury enhancements. The original abstract of judgment incorrectly identified defendant ’ s attempted
murder conviction as “ attempted second degree murder. ” After receiving several letters from the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the trial court ultimately corrected the abstract of judgment to correctly reflect defendant ’ s conviction as one for attempted premeditated murder and the sentence imp osed as life with the possibility of parole. Defendant appeals from the ultimate order correcting the abstract of judgment, which resulted in the second amended abstract of judgment.


### D ISCUSSION Review pursuant to Wende or its federal constitutional coun terpart Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [18 L.Ed.2d 493] is required only in the first appeal of right from a criminal conviction. ( Pennsylvania v. Finley (1987) 481 U.S. 551, 555 [95 L.Ed.2d 539, 545

- 546]; Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal .4th 529, 536

- 537 ( Ben C. ); Serrano , supra , 211 Cal.App.4th at pp. 500

- 501.) The right to Anders/Wende review applies only at appellate proceedings where a
defendant has a previously established constitutional right to counsel. ( Serrano , supra , 211 Cal.Ap p.4th at p. 500; 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 his or her substantial rights (Pen. Code, §§ 1237, 1240, subd. (a); Gov. Code, § 15421, subd. (c)), that right is statutory, not constitutional. Thus,
a defendant is not entitled to Wende review in such an app eal. (See Serrano , at p. 501 [no Wende review for denial of postconviction motion to vacate guilty plea pursuant to Pen. Code, § 1016.5].)3

The appeal before us, “ although originating in a criminal context, is not a first appeal of right from a criminal pr osecution, 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 post judgment order correcting a clerical
error in the abstract o f judgment. Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. ( Wende , supra , 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by cou nsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing the opening brief. Defendant filed a supplemental brief claiming he was taken advantage of at trial and at his sentencing because he could not hear the proceedings. The t ime to challenge his trial and sentence on appeal has long passed. ( See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104

. ) As nothing in defendant ’ s supplemental brief raises an arguable issue on appeal, we must
dismiss it. ( Serrano , supra , 211 Cal.App.4th at pp. 503

- 504.)


### D ISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed

.

HULL, Acting P. J.

We concur:

ROBIE, J.

MURRAY, J.