People v. Ayala CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D082730 · 2024-09-06 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD297632
Trial judge: Joan P. Weber
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Judith D. McConnell (author), O'Rourke, Buchanan

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:06Z · confidence low

The trial court convicted Alejandro Ayala of drug offenses and sentenced him to four years in state prison, doubling the term for a prior strike conviction. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent Wende review found no arguable issues for reversal.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Failure to pre-instruct the jury with CALCRIM No. 103 (Reasonable Doubt) at the start of trial “whether the trial court prejudicially erred by failing to pre-instruct the jury with CALCRIM No. 103 (Reasonable Doubt) at the start of trial”	unclear	not reached	unsure The court conducted an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende and concluded that there was no arguable issue that would result in a reversal or modification of the judgment, thereby affirming the trial court's ruling without specific analysis of this issue.
Imposition of sentence 20 or more judicial days after the jury returned its guilty verdicts “whether the court prejudicially erred by imposing sentence 20 or more judicial days after the jury returned its guilty verdicts (Pen. Code, § 1191)”	unclear	not reached	unsure The court conducted an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende and concluded that there was no arguable issue that would result in a reversal or modification of the judgment, thereby affirming the trial court's ruling without specific analysis of this issue.
Denial of motion to strike prior strike conviction under People v. Superior Court (Romero) “whether the court abused its discretion by denying Ayala’s motion to strike his prior strike conviction under People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497”	unclear	not reached	unsure The court conducted an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende and concluded that there was no arguable issue that would result in a reversal or modification of the judgment, thereby affirming the trial court's ruling without specific analysis of this issue.
Instruction of the jury with CALCRIM No. 224 instead of CALCRIM No. 225 “whether the court prejudicially erred by instructing the jury with CALCRIM No. 224 (Circumstantial Evidence: Sufficiency of Evidence), instead of CALCRIM No. 225 (Circumstantial Evidence: Intent or Mental State)”	unclear	not reached	unsure The court conducted an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende and concluded that there was no arguable issue that would result in a reversal or modification of the judgment, thereby affirming the trial court's ruling without specific analysis of this issue.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appellate counsel to file a brief identifying arguable issues and the court to independently review the record for error when counsel finds no arguable 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 no-merit brief.
relied: People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 — Establishes the standard for trial court discretion in striking prior strike convictions under the Three Strikes law.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is a standard Wende review where the court affirms the judgment based on an independent review of the record finding no arguable issues. It does not provide specific legal reasoning for the individual issues raised by counsel, relying instead on the procedural mandate of Wende and Anders.

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

After a jury convicted Alejandro Ayala of possession and transportation of methamphetamine for sale and misdemeanor possession of cocaine and cocaine base, the trial court denied his Romero motion, and sentenced him to four years in prison (low term doubled for a prior strike) with other terms stayed or concurrent. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief identifying four potential issues; the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issue, and affirmed the judgment.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Judgment of conviction and sentence as a whole (independent Wende/Anders review of the entire record) “We conclude there is no arguable issue that would result in a reversal or modification of the judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The court followed the Wende/Anders procedure: counsel filed a no-issue brief, the defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief and declined, and the court states it reviewed the entire record. Because no supplemental brief was filed, the court was not required to discuss specific issues. The opinion contains no record detail permitting independent verification, but the procedure applied is correct.
Failure to pre-instruct the jury with CALCRIM No. 103 (Reasonable Doubt) at the start of trial “whether the trial court prejudicially erred by failing to pre-instruct the jury with CALCRIM No. 103 (Reasonable Doubt) at the start of trial”	unclear	correct	unsure The court listed this as a potential issue flagged by counsel and concluded it was not arguable, but provided no analysis. Pre-instruction is generally discretionary and the opinion does not say whether the reasonable-doubt instruction was given at the close of evidence, so the result cannot be independently assessed from the opinion.
Imposition of sentence 20 or more judicial days after the verdict (Pen. Code, § 1191) “whether the court prejudicially erred by imposing sentence 20 or more judicial days after the jury returned its guilty verdicts (Pen. Code, § 1191)”	unclear	correct	unsure The court found no arguable issue but gave no reasoning. A section 1191 timing violation ordinarily requires a showing of prejudice and the opinion contains no facts on the delay or any objection, so the conclusion cannot be verified from the opinion alone.
Denial of motion to strike prior strike conviction under Romero “whether the court abused its discretion by denying Ayala’s motion to strike his prior strike conviction under People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497”	abuse of discretion	correct	unsure Counsel framed the issue as abuse of discretion, the proper standard for Romero rulings. The court concluded the issue was not arguable without describing the strike, the defendant's record, or the trial court's reasons, so there is no basis in the opinion to agree or disagree beyond noting that the correct standard was identified.
Instructing the jury with CALCRIM No. 224 rather than CALCRIM No. 225 on circumstantial evidence “erred by instructing the jury with CALCRIM No. 224 (Circumstantial Evidence: Sufficiency of Evidence), instead of CALCRIM No. 225 (Circumstantial Evidence: Intent or Mental State)”	unclear	correct	unsure Instructional error claims are reviewed de novo, though the opinion does not say so. Giving CALCRIM No. 224 instead of 225 is generally not prejudicial because 224 is the more inclusive instruction, which is consistent with the court's conclusion, but the opinion offers no analysis.

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.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous may so advise the court and request permission to withdraw, accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, with the court then conducting its own review.
relied: People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 — A trial court has discretion under Penal Code section 1385 to strike a prior strike conviction allegation in furtherance of justice.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court correctly applied the Wende/Anders procedure, advised the defendant of his right to file a supplemental brief, and affirmed after independent review, which is a defensible result where no supplemental brief was filed. However, the opinion offers no analysis of the four potential issues counsel identified, so the reader cannot evaluate why none was arguable.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 9/6/24 P. v. Ayala 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, D082730

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD297632)

ALEJANDRO AYALA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Joan P. Weber, Judge. Affirmed. Larenda R. Delaini, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Respondent.

Law enforcement officers conducted a traffic stop of a vehicle that was being driven by defendant Alejandro Ayala, searched the vehicle, and recovered 61.68 grams of methamphetamine, 1.73 grams of cocaine base, 1.34 grams of cocaine, 12.58 grams of fentanyl, more than $20,000 in cash, a digital scale, small unused bags, a paintball gun, and cell phones that had received numerous text messages referencing drug sales. After a jury trial, Ayala was found guilty of one count of possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378; count 3); one count of transportation of methamphetamine for sale (id., § 11379, subd. (a); count 4); one misdemeanor count of possession of cocaine (id., § 11350, subd. (a); count 5); and one misdemeanor count of possession of cocaine base (ibid.; count 6). In a bifurcated proceeding, Ayala admitted he suffered a prior strike conviction within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 668, 1170.12). The trial court sentenced him to four years in state prison, consisting of the low term of two years for count 4, doubled due to the prior strike conviction. The court imposed and stayed punishment for count 3 pursuant to Penal Code section 654, and it imposed concurrent 365-day sentences for counts 5 and 6. Ayala timely appealed the judgment of conviction. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 indicating that 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 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738. Counsel identified four potential issues to assist us in our review: (1) whether the trial court prejudicially erred by failing to pre-instruct the jury with CALCRIM No. 103 (Reasonable Doubt) at the start of trial; (2) whether the court prejudicially erred by imposing sentence 20 or more judicial days after the jury returned its guilty verdicts (Pen. Code, § 1191); (3) whether the court abused its discretion by denying Ayala’s motion to strike his prior strike conviction under People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497; and (4) whether the court prejudicially 2 erred by instructing the jury with CALCRIM No. 224 (Circumstantial Evidence: Sufficiency of Evidence), instead of CALCRIM No. 225 (Circumstantial Evidence: Intent or Mental State). Appellate counsel and this court informed Ayala of his right to file a supplemental brief, but Ayala declined to do so.1 We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders, and considered the issues identified by Ayala’s counsel. We conclude there is no arguable issue that would result in a reversal or modification of the judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment. Competent counsel has represented Ayala on this appeal. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

McCONNELL, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

O’ROURKE, J.

BUCHANAN, J.

1 Although Ayala did not file a supplemental brief, he filed an application to relieve his counsel and appoint new counsel. We denied the application. 3

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Superior Court (Romero) S045097 · 1996-06-20
People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12