People v. Wright CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D083275 · 2024-08-19 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCE417036
Trial judge: Roderick W. Shelton
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Buchanan, Julia C. Kelety

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:07Z · confidence low

The trial court accepted a guilty plea to carjacking, imposed a stipulated six-year sentence, and denied a motion to suppress identification evidence. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, finding no arguable issues for reversal.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of motion to suppress identification evidence “Whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress identification evidence at the preliminary hearing”	unclear	not reached	unsure The appellate court stated it independently reviewed the record but did not provide specific reasoning or a standard of review for this issue, merely concluding no arguable issues were found.
Denial of motion to dismiss under section 995 “Whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to dismiss the information under section 995”	unclear	not reached	unsure The court listed this as a potential issue identified by counsel but did not analyze it or state a standard of review, relying instead on the general Wende review conclusion.
Waiver of right to appeal “Wright agreed to waive his right to appeal the denial of his section 1538.5 motion and any issues relating to his strike prior and stipulated sentence.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The opinion notes the waiver as part of the plea agreement but does not explicitly analyze its validity or scope in the discussion section, treating the appeal as a Wende review.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Mandates independent review of the record by the appellate court when appointed counsel files a brief stating no arguable issues exist.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires counsel to identify potentially meritorious issues and the court to independently review the record in cases where counsel believes the appeal is frivolous.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly identifies the Wende/Anders framework and states that an independent review was conducted. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' opinion because it lists three specific potential issues identified by counsel but fails to provide any specific analysis or reasoning for why those issues were not arguable, relying solely on the general conclusion of the independent review.

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 Wright's guilty plea to carjacking with an admitted strike prior, imposed the stipulated six-year prison term and $2,634.36 in restitution, after having denied his motion to suppress a curbside identification and his section 995 motion. On appeal counsel filed a Wende brief identifying three possible issues, Wright 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
Entry of judgment on the guilty plea and imposition of the stipulated six-year sentence and restitution order “The court sentenced Wright to a six-year prison term and imposed a stipulated restitution order in the amount of $2,634.36.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The sentence and restitution were stipulated as part of the plea, Wright expressly waived appeal of sentencing and strike issues, and he obtained no certificate of probable cause, so no cognizable challenge to the plea or stipulated sentence appears. The Wende/Anders independent review procedure was followed and nothing in the opinion suggests error.
Enforceability of Wright's waiver of the right to appeal the denial of his section 1538.5 motion to exclude the curbside identification “Wright agreed to waive his right to appeal the denial of his section 1538.5 motion and any issues relating to his strike prior and stipulated sentence.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The opinion recites an express, specific waiver of the right to appeal the suppression ruling as a term of the plea bargain, and Wright did not obtain a certificate of probable cause that would be needed to attack the validity of that waiver. On this record the court's conclusion that the waiver presents no arguable issue is supported, though the opinion does not cite the governing waiver/certificate authorities.
Denial of the motion to suppress the curbside identification evidence at the preliminary hearing “2. Whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress identification evidence at the preliminary hearing;”	unclear	correct	unsure The appellate court treated this as a potential issue and found it not arguable, consistent with the express appellate waiver and absence of a certificate of probable cause. The opinion gives no facts about the identification procedure, so the merits cannot be independently evaluated from the opinion alone.
Denial of the section 995 motion to dismiss the information “3. Whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to dismiss the information under section 995.”	unclear	correct	unsure A guilty plea generally forecloses review of a section 995 ruling absent a certificate of probable cause, which Wright did not obtain, so the court's determination that no arguable issue exists is defensible. The opinion contains no description of the preliminary hearing evidence, so the underlying merits cannot be assessed.

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 error.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds no meritorious issues should file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal to assist the court's review.
missed: People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68 — A challenge to a stipulated sentence or to the validity of an appellate waiver that is part of a plea bargain attacks the validity of the plea and requires a certificate of probable cause under section 1237.5.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court followed the Wende/Anders procedure, listed counsel's three potential issues, invited a supplemental brief, and independently reviewed the record before affirming, which is the correct disposition for a plea with an express appellate waiver and no certificate of probable cause. It did not, however, cite or discuss the certificate-of-probable-cause and appellate-waiver authorities (e.g., Panizzon) that explain why the identified issues are not cognizable, and it recites almost no facts.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 8/19/24 P. v. Wright 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, D083275

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCE417036)

JUSTIN MICHAEL WRIGHT,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Roderick W. Shelton, Judge. Affirmed. Jennifer M. French, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Justin Michael Wright pleaded guilty to one count of carjacking (Pen.

Code,1 § 215, subd. (a)). As part of the plea agreement the parties stipulated to a six year prison sentence. Wright agreed to waive his right to appeal the 1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code. denial of his section 1538.5 motion and any issues relating to his strike prior and stipulated sentence. The court sentenced Wright to a six-year prison term and imposed a stipulated restitution order in the amount of $2,634.36. Wright filed a timely notice of appeal but did not request a certificate of probable cause. As part of his plea, Wright admitted he took possession of a vehicle from the immediate presence of the victim by force or fear with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of possession of the vehicle. Wright also admitted a strike prior (§ 667, subds.(b)-(i)). 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 notified Wright that he could file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to review the record for error. To assist the court in its review, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified three possible issues that have been reviewed in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal. 1. Whether Wright properly waived his right to appeal the denial of his motion to exclude the curbside identification from evidence; 2. Whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress identification evidence at the preliminary hearing; and 2 3. Whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to dismiss the information under section 995. We have independently reviewed the record for error as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Wright on this appeal. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

BUCHANAN, J.

KELETY, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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