People v. Anderson CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from an order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCN432383
- Trial judge
- Robert J. Kearney
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Laurence D. Rubin (author), Joan K. Irion, Julia C. Kelety
Analysis
The trial court revoked Anderson's probation for multiple violations, including a new felony conviction for resisting an executive officer, and sentenced him to state prison. The Court of Appeal affirmed the order, finding no reasonably arguable issues on independent review of the record.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Order revoking probation“We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.” | unclear | not reached | unsure The opinion is a Wende/Anders review where counsel found no issues and the court independently reviewed the record without identifying specific errors to analyze. The court affirmed because it found no arguable issues, rather than applying a specific standard of review to a specific trial court ruling. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to independently review the record for error when no issues are raised.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to file a brief identifying any arguable issues or explaining why none exist.
- relied: People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 — Establishes the procedure for a defendant to request a change of counsel.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is a standard Wende/Anders review where the court found no arguable issues after independent review. It is procedurally correct but does not engage with the merits of the probation revocation.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe San Diego Superior Court revoked Grant Anderson's probation in case SCN432383 after he incurred new convictions for resisting an executive officer and battery on a peace officer, denied his Marsden motion, and sentenced him to a concurrent low term of one year four months. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief, Anderson 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
Order revoking and terminating probation and imposing a concurrent low-term prison sentence in case SCN432383“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 | agree with court The opinion applies the Wende/Anders independent-review procedure rather than any articulated standard. The record as described shows a new felony conviction for conduct squarely violating the obey-all-laws and no-violence conditions, a low-term sentence run concurrently, and fines stricken for inability to pay, so nothing in the recited facts suggests an arguable error in revocation or sentencing. |
Denial of defendant's Marsden motion to discharge appointed counsel after an in camera hearing“After an in camera hearing, the court denied Anderson’s Marsden motion.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The court held the required in camera hearing before denying the motion, and the appellate court's independent record review found no arguable issue. The opinion gives no detail about the substance of the hearing, so agreement rests on the procedural regularity recited and the absence of any contrary indication. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed counsel finds no arguable issues on a first appeal of right, the Court of Appeal must independently review the entire record for arguable error.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed appellate counsel who concludes an appeal is frivolous must so advise the court and the court must examine the record to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous.
- relied: People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 — A defendant seeking to discharge appointed counsel must be given a hearing to state the reasons for dissatisfaction before the court rules on the request.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion follows the standard Wende/Anders procedure, notifies the defendant of his right to file a supplemental brief, recites the facts and procedural history, and affirms after independent review. It is brief and does not discuss the substance of the Marsden hearing or the revocation findings, but a Wende affirmance does not require more where no arguable issue is identified.
Opinion
Filed 8/20/24 P. v. Anderson 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, D083200
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN432383)
GRANT W. ANDERSON, Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Robert J. Kearney, Judge. Affirmed. William D. Farber, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. INTRODUCTION Grant W. Anderson appeals from an order revoking probation. His appointed counsel filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders). We informed Anderson of his right to personally file a brief, and he has not done so. We find no reasonably arguable appellate issues and affirm.1 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Anderson pleaded no contest on December 23, 2022 to felony resisting an executive officer (Pen. Code,2 § 69) in case number SCN432383. The trial court accepted Anderson’s plea and sentenced him on March 16, 2023 to two years formal probation with credit for time served. Anderson’s probation conditions included that he obey all laws; report to his parole officer as directed; not knowingly use or possess alcohol as directed; and not unlawfully use force, threats, or violence against another person. On April 25, 2023, Anderson’s probation officer issued a probation report alleging Anderson violated multiple conditions of his probation. First, the report alleged Anderson failed to appear for a probation appointment scheduled for April 13, 2023. Second, the report described Anderson’s arrest on April 20, 2023 for public intoxication (§ 647, subd. (f)), during which Anderson threatened to kill the arresting officer and the officer’s family, spat on the officer, and attempted to headbutt the officer. Anderson was subsequently convicted in case number SCN443066 of felony resisting an executive officer (§ 69) and misdemeanor battery upon a peace officer (§ 243, subd. (b)). Anderson moved to discharge defense counsel in case number SCN432383 on July 5, 2023 pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden)). After an in camera hearing, the court denied Anderson’s Marsden motion.
1 On the court’s own motion, we take judicial notice of our records in appeal number D083103.
2 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 On October 31, 2023, the court sentenced Anderson in case number SCN443066 and then revoked and terminated his probation in case number SCN432383. The court sentenced Anderson in case number SCN432383 to the low term of one year four months in state prison to be served concurrently to the sentence imposed in case number SCN443066. The court struck all fines, fees, and costs based on Anderson’s inability to pay. Anderson timely appealed the order revoking probation in case number SCN432383.3 DISCUSSION Anderson’s appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case and statement of facts, urging no grounds for reversal of the judgment, and asking this court to independently review the record for error. We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Anderson on this appeal.
3 Anderson separately appealed the judgment in case number SCN443066 in appeal number D083103. 3 DISPOSITION The order revoking Anderson’s probation is affirmed.
RUBIN, J.
WE CONCUR:
IRION, Acting P. J.
KELETY, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12
- People v. Marsden Crim. 14119 · 1970-02-26