People v. Bolden CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD279768, SCD287749
- Trial judge
- Runston G. Maino
- Outcome
- affirmed — Request for judicial notice granted. Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- William S. Dato (author), Joan K. Irion, Julia C. Kelety
Analysis
The trial court denied the defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty pleas and his requests for certificates of probable cause to appeal. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent Wende review found no reasonably arguable issues.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of motion to withdraw guilty pleas“In February 2022, the court denied Bolden’s motion to withdraw his guilty pleas in Cases 1 and 2.” | unclear | not reached | agree with court The appellate court did not review the merits of the trial court's denial of the motion to withdraw guilty pleas. Instead, the court treated the defendant's attempt to challenge the validity of the plea on appeal as procedurally barred because he failed to obtain a certificate of probable cause from the trial court and failed to file a petition for writ of mandate to challenge the denial of that certificate. The appellate court relied on the procedural default rather than the substantive merits of the withdrawal motion. |
Denial of requests for certificates of probable cause“The court denied his requests for certificates of probable cause.” | unclear | not reached | agree with court The appellate court did not review the trial court's denial of the certificates of probable cause on the merits. It held that the defendant's remedy for an improper denial was a petition for writ of mandate, which he did not file. Consequently, the appellate court treated the plea as unchallengeable on direct appeal due to the lack of a certificate. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Establishes the obligation of appointed appellate counsel to review the record for arguable issues and the court's independent duty to do the same in cases where counsel finds no issues.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires independent review of the record by the appellate court when appointed counsel files a brief stating there are no arguable issues.
- relied: People v. DeVaughn (1977) 18 Cal.3d 889 — A defendant challenging the validity of a guilty plea on appeal must first obtain a certificate of probable cause from the trial court.
- relied: In re Brown (1973) 9 Cal.3d 679 — The remedy for the improper denial of a certificate of probable cause is a petition for writ of mandate, not a direct appeal of the judgment.
- relied: Taus v. Loftus (2007) 40 Cal.4th 683 — Supports the taking of judicial notice of the sentencing memorandum as it was referenced as the basis for the sentences.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the Wende/Anders framework to conduct an independent review. It accurately identifies that the defendant's failure to obtain a certificate of probable cause or file a writ of mandate precludes direct appellate review of the plea's validity.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionIn two consolidated San Diego cases, the trial court accepted Bolden's guilty pleas to drug sales offenses with a strike admission, denied his Marsden motion, denied his self-represented motions to withdraw the pleas and suppress evidence, denied habeas petitions, imposed a stipulated aggregate eight-year prison term across three cases, and denied his requests for certificates of probable cause. On appeal, counsel filed a Wende brief, Bolden filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, granted judicial notice of the Case 3 sentencing memorandum, held any challenge to plea validity was barred for lack of a certificate of probable cause, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of certificates of probable cause / challenge to validity of guilty pleas“To the extent Bolden sought to challenge the validity of his plea, he was required to obtain a certificate of probable cause.” | de novo | correct | agree with court Penal Code section 1237.5 and DeVaughn/Brown make a certificate of probable cause a prerequisite to appellate review of plea validity, and the exclusive remedy for a wrongful denial is a writ of mandate, which Bolden did not seek. The court correctly applied that settled rule. |
Denial of motion to withdraw guilty pleas in Cases 1 and 2“In February 2022, the court denied Bolden’s motion to withdraw his guilty pleas in Cases 1 and 2.” | de novo | correct | agree with court The appellate court's independent Wende review found no arguable issue; because the withdrawal motion attacked the validity of the pleas (based on the parole-status/search theory), review was foreclosed without a certificate of probable cause. The opinion gives no reason to doubt that conclusion on this record. |
Denial of Marsden motion“The court denied the Marsden motion.” | unclear | not reached | agree with court The opinion notes the Marsden motion appears to have related to Case 3, which was not appealed, and does not analyze it further beyond the general Wende finding of no arguable issues. Without a record of the hearing in the opinion, there is no basis to disagree. |
Imposition of stipulated eight-year aggregate sentence“On February 14, 2023, consistent with his plea bargain in Case 3, the court sentenced Bolden to a total of eight years in prison for the three cases” | de novo | correct | agree with court The sentence was within the negotiated eight-year, eight-month cap and the components described (middle terms, one-third consecutive terms, section 654 stays, strike doubling) are consistent with the Determinate Sentencing Law as recited. The Wende review disclosed no sentencing error and the opinion's recitation shows none. |
Request for judicial notice of Case 3 sentencing memorandum (appellate ruling)“We grant that request as the proper subject of judicial notice under Evidence Code, section 452, subdivision (d), and relevant to the appeals here.” | unclear | correct | agree with court Court records are a proper subject of judicial notice under Evidence Code section 452(d), and the memorandum was expressly the basis for the sentences under review, satisfying the relevance requirement of Taus v. Loftus. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed counsel finds no arguable issues, the appellate court must independently review the entire record for arguable issues.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Constitutional framework for appointed counsel's handling of appeals believed to lack merit, requiring court review of the record.
- relied: People v. DeVaughn (1977) 18 Cal.3d 889 — A defendant may not challenge the validity of a guilty plea on appeal without obtaining a certificate of probable cause under Penal Code section 1237.5.
- relied: In re Brown (1973) 9 Cal.3d 679 — A certificate of probable cause is required to appeal plea validity, and the remedy for an improper denial of a certificate is a petition for writ of mandate.
- relied: Taus v. Loftus (2007) 40 Cal.4th 683 — Judicial notice of court records is proper only when the material is relevant to the issues on appeal.
- relied: People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 — A defendant seeking substitution of appointed counsel must be permitted to state the reasons for the request at a hearing.
- relied: Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 — A criminal defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to self-representation upon a knowing and intelligent waiver of counsel.
- relied: People v. Lopez (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 568 — Suggested advisements for ensuring a defendant's waiver of counsel is knowing and intelligent.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion follows the required Wende/Anders procedure, provides the factual and procedural summary, invites a supplemental brief, and correctly identifies the certificate-of-probable-cause bar under DeVaughn and Brown as foreclosing any plea-validity challenge. The analysis is brief but adequate for a no-issue Wende disposition where the defendant filed nothing.
Opinion
Filed 8/6/24 P. v. Bolden 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, D081960
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. Nos. SCD279768, SCD287749 ) ANTHONY BOLDEN, Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Runston G. Maino, Judge. Request for judicial notice granted. Affirmed. Michelle Rogers and Barbara A. Smith, under appointments by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
We independently review the record in this case consistent with our obligations under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders). Finding no arguable issues, we affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND This appeal involves three cases against defendant Anthony Bolden, culminating in a single stipulated sentence. Bolden filed notices of appeal in the first two cases, but not in the third. In the first case (SCD279768; Case 1), Bolden was arrested in December 2018 after police approached his parked vehicle to issue a citation. After conducting a records check, which showed an active parole warrant for Bolden’s arrest, they searched Bolden and the vehicle, uncovering bags of a suspected controlled substance and scales. The People charged Bolden with possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Safety Code,1 § 11378); two prison prior terms (Pen. Code, §§ 667.5, subd. (b)), 668; and a prior strike conviction for a 2013 offense (id., §§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12, subd. (a)). In January 2020, Bolden pleaded guilty to the possession for sale count and admitted one strike prior. Prior to sentencing, Bolden was released from custody in April 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic with an order to appear for sentencing in August 2020. In August 2020, his sentencing hearing was continued. Bolden failed to appear at the April 7, 2021, continued sentencing hearing. Meanwhile, Bolden’s second case (SCD287749; Case 2) arose in October 2020 when police officers pulled Bolden over for a routine traffic stop, discovered he had an outstanding felony warrant, and found suspected controlled substances in his possession after a search. The People charged Bolden with transportation for sale of a cocaine base (§ 11352, subd. (a)), possession for sale of cocaine base (§ 11351), transportation for sale of methamphetamine (§ 11379, subd. (a)), possession for sale of 1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code. 2 methamphetamine (§ 11378); possession of heroin (§ 11350, subd. (a)); and giving false information to a peace officer (Pen. Code, § 148.9, subd. (a)). The information further alleged a strike prior for the 2013 offense. In February 2021, Bolden pleaded guilty to transportation for sale of a controlled substance, possession of a controlled substance and admitted the strike prior conviction. In the third case (SCD289986; Case 3), in May 2021, the People charged Bolden with violations of Health and Safety Code sections 11370.l, subdivision (a), 11378, and Penal Code sections 29800, subdivision (a)(l), 30305, subdivision (a)(l), 69, 148, subdivision (a)(l), and 148.9, subdivision (a). Bolden ultimately pleaded guilty to these charges with the understanding that the combined sentence on all three cases would not exceed eight years, eight months.
On July 12, 2021, the trial court held a Marsden2 hearing. Bolden argued his attorney was incorrect in believing he was on parole, and thus properly subject to a Fourth Amendment waiver, at the time of the 2018 search leading to his arrest in Case 1.3 The court denied the Marsden motion. In the following months, after Bolden refused to appear in court on multiple occasions, defense counsel declared a doubt as to his competency on August 5, 2021. Criminal proceedings were reinstated on October 7, 2021.
2 See People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118. 3 Although the transcript lists the numbers of Cases 1 and 2, it appears the Marsden motion was related to his representation in Case 3, which is not part of this appeal. 3 Shortly thereafter, Bolden signed a Faretta/Lopez4 waiver in order to represent himself in Cases 1 and 2. He then moved to withdraw his guilty pleas and to suppress evidence in those cases. The basis for these motions was Bolden’s continuing belief that, at the time of his arrest leading to the December 2018 charge, he was not on parole after release following his term of imprisonment for the 2013 offense in part because he refused to sign the terms and conditions of parole. In February 2022, the court denied Bolden’s motion to withdraw his guilty pleas in Cases 1 and 2. Later that year, in Cases 1 and 2, the court denied petitions for writ of habeas corpus filed by Bolden based on claims related to his parole. On February 14, 2023, consistent with his plea bargain in Case 3, the court sentenced Bolden to a total of eight years in prison for the three cases, including four years in Case 1 (the middle term of two years for the § 11378, doubled for the strike); a consecutive term of two years in Case 2 (one-third middle term for the violation of § 11379, subdivision (a), doubled for the strike), and a consecutive term of two years in Case 3 (one-third of the middle term for the violation of § 11370.l, subd. (a); one-third of the middle term for resisting an officer under Penal Code, § 69, to run concurrently;
the remaining counts stayed under Pen. Code, § 654; strike stricken).5 4 See generally Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 and People v. Lopez (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 568. 5 Bolden requests that we take judicial notice of his sentencing memorandum from Case 3. We grant that request as the proper subject of judicial notice under Evidence Code, section 452, subdivision (d), and relevant to the appeals here. (Taus v. Loftus (2007) 40 Cal.4th 683, 726.) The sentencing memorandum was explicitly referenced as the basis for Bolden’s sentences in the matters on appeal. 4 Following sentencing, Bolden filed notices of appeal and requested certificates of probable cause in Cases 1 and 2, seeking to challenge the validity of his plea on constitutional and jurisdictional grounds. The court denied his requests for certificates of probable cause.
DISCUSSION
Appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 indicating she identified no reasonably arguable issue for reversal on appeal. She asks this court to review the record as mandated by Wende. We offered Bolden the opportunity to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. He has not responded. Our review of the record as mandated by Wende and Anders has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. To the extent Bolden sought to challenge the validity of his plea, he was required to obtain a certificate of probable cause. (People v. DeVaughn (1977) 18 Cal.3d 889, 896; In re Brown (1973) 9 Cal.3d 679, 682–683.) If he believed a certificate was improperly denied by the trial court, his only remedy was to file a petition for writ of mandate. (Brown, at p. 683.) None was filed here. Competent counsel represented Bolden on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. DATO, J.
WE CONCUR:
IRION, Acting P. J.
KELETY, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- Taus v. Loftus S133805 · 2007-02-26
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12
- People v. Lopez Crim. 9186 · 1977-07-08
- People v. DeVaughn Docket Nos. Crim. 19468, 19469 · 1977-01-25
- In Re Brown Crim. 16641 · 1973-07-10
- People v. Marsden Crim. 14119 · 1970-02-26