People v. Childress CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D082753 · 2024-07-15 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from an order
Trial court: Superior Court of Riverside County · No. BLF2100188
Trial judges: Charles J. Koosed; Russell L. Moore
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Julia C. Kelety (author), Joan K. Irion, William S. Dato

Analysis

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

The trial court convicted James Edward Childress of multiple drug and weapons offenses and sentenced him to three years and eight months. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, finding no arguable issues for reversal.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Affirmance of the judgment following a Wende/Anders review “We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.”	de novo	correct	agree with court agree with court

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appellate counsel to file a brief identifying potential issues and the court to conduct an independent review of the record when counsel finds no meritorious issues.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to withdraw from an appeal by filing a brief identifying arguable issues and notifying the client.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly applies the Wende and Anders procedures for handling appeals where appointed counsel identifies no meritorious issues. The court explicitly states it reviewed the entire record and found no arguable issues, which satisfies the procedural requirements for affirmance in this context.

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

A Riverside County jury convicted James Edward Childress of furnishing a controlled substance to a minor, maintaining a place for drug sales and use, possession of a dangerous weapon, possession of a controlled substance, possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of brass knuckles, and the trial court sentenced him to three years eight months with 992 days of credit. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief identifying only a possible sufficiency-of-the-evidence issue on the furnishing count, Childress filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Judgment of conviction on counts 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 and sentence of three years eight months, reviewed under the Wende/Anders independent-review procedure (with counsel flagging the sufficiency of the evidence that Childress furnished a controlled substance to a minor) “We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion recites no facts from the trial record and performs no stated analysis of the sufficiency issue counsel identified; it simply states that independent review disclosed no arguable issues. The procedure followed (counsel's declaration of efforts to contact the client, mailing of the brief, notice of the right to file a supplemental brief, and the court's own review) tracks Wende and Anders, so the disposition is procedurally proper, but there is nothing in the opinion from which to independently confirm that the furnishing conviction was supported by substantial evidence.

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 issues before affirming.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous must so advise the court and may identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, with the court then conducting its own review.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court followed the required Wende/Anders steps, confirmed counsel's attempts to notify the defendant of his right to file a supplemental brief, and stated it reviewed the entire record; that is a defensible and routine affirmance. The opinion, however, gives no statement of the facts and no discussion of the one issue counsel flagged (sufficiency of evidence on the furnishing count), and it describes the appeal as from an 'order' while affirming a 'judgment,' leaving a reader unable to evaluate the merits.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 7/15/24 P. v. Childress 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, D082753

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. BLF2100188) JAMES EDWARD CHILDRESS, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Charles Jacob Koosed, Russell L. Moore, Judges. Affirmed. Robert L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2023, a jury convicted James Edward Childress of furnishing a controlled substance to a minor (Health & Saf. Code, § 11380) (count 1); maintaining a place to sell, give and use a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11366) (count 3); possession of a dangerous weapon (Pen. Code § 22210) (count 4); possession of a controlled substance (Health& Saf. Code, § 11350) (count 5); possession of a drug paraphernalia (Health& Saf. Code, § 11364) (count 6); and possession of brass knuckles (Pen. Code, § 21810) (count 7). He was sentenced to 3 years eight months, with credit for time served of 992 days. Childress filed a timely notice of appeal. Childress’s appellate counsel filed a declaration stating that he attempted to contact Childress using his last known address, his father’s address, and his last known e-mail address, but Childress did not respond. No mail was returned. Appellate counsel subsequently filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), indicating he has not been able to identify any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asked the court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. Upon order of this court, appellate counsel filed a further declaration stating that he had mailed a copy of the Wende brief to Childress at his last known address, and had advised him of the Wende brief procedure, including Childress’s right to file his own supplemental brief. This court had ordered that such a brief be filed within thirty days of an order dated June 10, 2024. No supplemental brief has been received. To assist the court in its review, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified the following possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Was there sufficient evidence that appellant furnished a controlled substance to a minor? DISCUSSION We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.

2 Competent counsel has represented Childress on this appeal. We therefore affirm. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

KELETY, J.

WE CONCUR:

IRION, Acting P. J.

DATO, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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