# People v. Kelly

> California Supreme Court · November 27, 2006 · 51 Cal. Rptr. 3d 98

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9787300

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GARY ROGERS KELLY, Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** November 27, 2006
- **Citations:** 51 Cal. Rptr. 3d 98; 40 Cal. 4th 106; 2006 Daily Journal DAR 15444; 146 P.3d 547; 2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10808; 2006 Cal. LEXIS 13945
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Corrigan
- **Judges:** George, Corrigan
- **Cited by:** 3,073 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9787300

## Opinion text

CORRIGAN, J., Concurring and Dissenting.
I concur in part. I agree with the majority’s conclusions that a Wende appeal (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 [ 158 Cal.Rptr. 839 , 600 P.2d 1071 ]) constitutes a “cause,” and that a Wende opinion must summarily describe and respond to any contentions raised by the defendant after counsel fails to find any arguable issues. (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 109.)
Where I part company with the majority is in its exercise of this court’s supervisory power to impose additional requirements on the Courts of Appeal. While I do not object to asking the courts to identify the crimes of which the defendant was convicted and the punishment imposed, I would not require them to describe any facts or procedural details that are not directly relevant to claims made by the defendant. I would certainly not encourage them to anticipate future habeas corpus petitions; in the vast majority of Wende appeals this would simply be a waste of time. Collateral attack is most uncommon in these cases.
I hesitate to reach back to the 19th century for words of wisdom on a 21st century problem; as the majority notes, the constitutional debates of 1878-1879 involved nothing akin to Wende review. (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 122.) However, Clitus Barbour was onto something when he made the following remarks about the requirement of a statement of reasons: “We [do] not mean that they shall include the small cases, and impose on the country all this fine judicial literature, for the Lord knows we have got enough of that *127 already. To give us the reason for it does not take three lines.” (3 Willis & Stockton, Debates and Proceedings, Cal. Const. Convention 1878-1879, pp. 1455-1456; see maj. opn., ante, at p. 115.)
We should bear in mind that Wende appeals are by definition meritless. In the exceptional case where Wende review discloses an arguable issue, briefing is sought and a conventional opinion is issued. When there are no arguable issues, the reviewing court should be permitted to dispose of the case with a minimum of “judicial literature.” It should be sufficient to note the crimes committed, the sentence imposed, the filing of a Wende brief, whether the defendant raised any claims of his or her own and if so, the nature of those claims and the reasons they fail. Every case is important, but for these appeals, in which repeated review by appointed counsel and the court has revealed no meritorious issue, Mr. Barbour’s prescription for a succinct statement of reasons should be followed.
Baxter, J., and Chin, J., concurred.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9787300. Public record. Not legal advice.