What is the effect of a judgment denying defendant's request to modify the terms of his mandatory supervision order?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Singleton, E068133 (Cal. App. 2017):
Defendant appealed and, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case and the following potential arguable issues: (1) whether the court's order denying defendant's request to modify the terms of his mandatory supervision is an appealable order; and (2) whether the court improperly failed to exercise its discretion
Page 5
when it refused to consider defendant's conditional admission that he violated the terms of his mandatory supervision.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the record for potential error. We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
The judgment is affirmed.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
