People v. Templar CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D082875 · 2024-07-12 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD295831
Trial judge: Dwayne K. Moring
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Judith D. McConnell, O'Rourke

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:09Z · confidence low

The trial court denied the defendant's motion to set aside his guilty plea for assault with a deadly weapon and affirmed the judgment on appeal. The Court of Appeal, conducting an independent review under People v. Wende, found no arguable issues for reversal and affirmed the judgment.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of motion to set aside guilty plea “Whether the court erred in denying Templar’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We have reviewed the record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The appellate court did not apply a specific standard of review (such as abuse of discretion) to the trial court's ruling. Instead, it relied on the Wende/Anders framework to determine if the issue was 'arguable' for reversal. Because the court found no arguable issues, it did not evaluate the trial court's specific legal application or factual findings regarding the plea withdrawal.
Jurisdictional challenge based on fictitious name “Templar requests new counsel because he contends appellate counsel is incompetent. In his materials Templar, for the first time claims he was not properly charged. “Ellis Templar” is a fictitious person. He now claims his real name is Lachlan Rotechrek, thus he argues the trial court did not have jurisdiction to try the case because Ellis Templar does not exist.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The court noted this claim was raised for the first time on appeal and stated that these issues 'will have to await some other legal challenge.' The court did not analyze the legal merit of the jurisdictional argument or apply a standard of review to the trial court's acceptance of the plea under the name 'Ellis Templar.'

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to file a brief identifying arguable issues and the court to independently review the record for error if counsel finds none.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to withdraw from representation on appeal when the appeal is wholly frivolous, requiring a brief identifying potential issues and court review.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound in its application of the Wende/Anders framework, correctly identifying the duty to independently review the record. However, it is substantively thin, as it dismisses the defendant's specific arguments (jurisdiction, coercion, ineffective assistance) without any legal analysis or citation to authorities governing those specific claims, relying solely on the conclusion that no 'arguable issues' were found.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:29Z · confidence low

The trial court accepted Templar's guilty plea to assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)), denied his motion to set aside the plea (treated as a motion for new trial) after appointing new counsel and briefly allowing self-representation, and placed him on two years of formal probation with 205 days of credit. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief, Templar filed a supplemental brief claiming lack of jurisdiction based on his asserted true name, ineffective assistance by all counsel, error in denying plea withdrawal, and a coerced plea; the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, denied his motion to augment, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of Templar's motion to withdraw (set aside) his guilty plea “Whether the court erred in denying Templar’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea.”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion identifies this as the one potential issue flagged by counsel under Anders and states that independent Wende review disclosed no arguable issue. It does not state the governing standard (ordinarily abuse of discretion under § 1018) or describe the grounds for the motion or the trial court's reasons, so there is nothing in the opinion from which to evaluate the merits independently; the result is plausible but unverifiable from the text.
Rejection of Templar's supplemental claims (lack of jurisdiction because 'Ellis Templar' is allegedly a fictitious name, ineffective assistance of all trial counsel, and coerced plea) “Our review of Templar’s brief and the record has not raised any arguable issues for reversal of his current conviction.”	unclear	correct	agree with court A defendant's claim that he was charged under a name other than his true name does not deprive the superior court of jurisdiction over the person actually before it, and ineffective-assistance and coercion claims resting on matters outside the record are properly deferred to habeas, as the court implied by noting the issues 'will have to await some other legal challenge.' The conclusion is defensible, but the court gave no reasons for rejecting each contention, which People v. Kelly requires when a defendant files a supplemental Wende brief.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel finds no arguable issues, the Court of Appeal must independently review the entire record for arguable error before affirming.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal frivolous should file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, and the court must then decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.
missed: People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 — In a Wende appeal where the defendant files a supplemental brief, the Court of Appeal's opinion must set out the contentions raised and explain why they fail; the opinion here listed the contentions but did not give reasons for rejecting them.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court followed Wende and Anders, conducted independent review, and reached a defensible affirmance of a conviction on a guilty plea with probation. However, after receiving Templar's supplemental brief it merely recited his contentions and announced that no arguable issues existed, without the brief statement of reasons that People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 requires, and it did not identify the standard of review or the substance of the plea-withdrawal motion.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 7/12/24 P. v. Templar CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS 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.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D082875

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD295831)

ELLIS TEMPLAR,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Dwayne K. Moring, Judge. Affirmed. Ellis Templar, in pro. per.; and John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Ellis Templar pleaded guilty to assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury (Pen. Code,1 § 245, subd. (a)(4)). Templar thereafter sought to set aside his guilty plea. Templar was provided new counsel to address his 1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code. motion for new trial. At one point, he was permitted to represent himself. The motion for new trial was denied and Templar again requested counsel. The court granted two years formal probation with credit for 205 days served. Templar filed a timely notice of appeal and obtained a certificate of probable cause (§ 1237.5). Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to independently review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We advised Templar he could file his own brief on appeal. He has responded with a lengthy submission and several motions.2 Templar requests new counsel because he contends appellate counsel is incompetent. In his materials Templar, for the first time claims he was not properly charged. “Ellis Templar” is a fictitious person. He now claims his real name is Lachlan Rotechrek, thus he argues the trial court did not have jurisdiction to try the case because Ellis Templar does not exist. Additionally, Templar claims all of his attorneys were ineffective, and the court erred in denying his motion to set aside his guilty plea. Lastly, he contends his guilty plea was coerced. Our review of Templar’s brief and the record has not raised any arguable issues for reversal of his current conviction. The issues Templar seeks to raise will have to await some other legal challenge if he chooses to pursue such proceedings.

2 Templar’s motion to augment the reporter’s transcript from the preliminary hearing, is denied. 2 STATEMENT OF FACTS This appeal follows a guilty plea. Appellate counsel has submitted a brief statement from the plea process. We will include that statement here for convenience. Templar and H.L. were in a dating relationship which ended. H.L. started dating M.B. On July 6, 2022, H.L. and M.B. left the Tilted Stick Bar in Point Loma around 10:30 p.m. to walk to H.L. residence. Templar assaulted M.B. from behind and struck his head multiple times with a metal or aluminum bottle. They grappled and Templar twice struck M.B. in the face. Templar fled. The police responded. DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to independently review the record for error. To assist the court in its review, and in apparent compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified one possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Whether the court erred in denying Templar’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We have reviewed the record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Templar on this appeal.

3 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

O’ROURKE, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12