Ronald S. v. Superior Court, A069248

• Decision Date: 19 May 1995
• Docket Number: No. A069248,A069248
• Citation: 41 Cal.Rptr.2d 139,34 Cal.App.4th 1467
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: RONALD S., Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of Mendocino County, Respondent; DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Real Party in Interest.

Page 139

41 Cal.Rptr.2d 139

34 Cal.App.4th 1467

RONALD S., Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of Mendocino County, Respondent DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Real Party in Interest.

No. A069248.

Court of Appeal, First District, Division 4, California.

May 19, 1995.

Rehearing Denied June 12, 1995.

Ronald W. Brown, Public Defender and Teresa Ann Capriolo, Deputy Public Defender, Ukiah, for petitioner.

No appearance for respondent.

H. Peter Klein, County Counsel and Sandra L. Applegate, Deputy County Counsel, County of Mendocino, Ukiah, for real party in interest.

ANDERSON, Presiding Justice.

Petitioner Ronald S., the father of the minor Dylan H., has filed a petition for extraordinary relief pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, subdivision (b)(1) (referred to hereafter as section 366.26). Petitioner raises no substantive issues but requests this court to provide guidance to trial counsel who find no arguable claims to be raised by the petition for writ relief and to conduct a review of the entire record to determine for itself whether there are arguable issues in this case.

The review petitioner requests, referred to as a Wende review, is required in reviews of criminal convictions. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 158 Cal.Rptr. 839, 600 P.2d 1071.) In In re Angela G. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 398, 39 Cal.Rptr.2d 308, we held that Wende review was not required on the appeal of an order terminating parental rights. Prior to the amendment of subdivision (b)(1) of section 366.26, the decision to set a section 366.26 hearing could be reviewed on appeal from the final order made at the section 366.26 hearing. (In re Matthew C. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 386, 401, 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 765, 862 P.2d 765.) Subdivision (b)(1) now provides that the decision to set a section 366.26 hearing may not be raised on appeal unless a writ petition challenging the order was filed in a timely manner. "These petitions for extraordinary writs for relief from orders setting selection and implementation hearings function like interlocutory appeals." (Guillermo G. v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1168, 1173, 39 Cal.Rptr.2d 748.) It follows that petitioners, when challenging the setting of a 366.26 hearing, are not entitled to an independent Wende review.

In view of the possible effect on a later appeal from a final order at the section 366.26 hearing, petitioner's counsel asks for guidance to trial counsel who find no arguable claims to raise--a...