People v. Beepath CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCE415631
- Trial judge
- Sherry M. Thompson-Taylor
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Laurence D. Rubin (author), Richard D. Huffman, Sr., Truc T. Do
Analysis
The trial court convicted the defendant of disobeying a domestic violence protective order and sentenced him to 364 days, which was satisfied by presentence custody credit. On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review under People v. Wende found no arguable issues and confirmed the conviction was supported by substantial evidence.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Conviction for disobeying a domestic violence protective order (Penal Code section 273.6, subdivision (a))“We conclude there is substantial evidence to support his conviction on count 2; there are no other arguable issues that would result in a reversal or modification of the judgment; and competent counsel has represented him on this appeal.” | substantial evidence | correct | agree with court agree with court |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires independent review of the record by appellate counsel when no arguable issues are identified.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to file a brief identifying no arguable issues while requesting independent review.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for independent review. It identifies the only potential issue raised by counsel (sufficiency of evidence) and resolves it affirmatively based on the record.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court entered judgment on a jury verdict convicting Beepath of misdemeanor disobeying a domestic violence protective order (Pen. Code, § 273.6, subd. (a)), declared a mistrial and dismissed the felony criminal threat count, sentenced him to 364 days with full credit for time served, and issued a seven-year criminal protective order. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders no-issue brief, Beepath filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found substantial evidence supported the conviction and no arguable issues, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Judgment of conviction on count 2 (violating a domestic violence protective order) is supported by substantial evidence“We conclude there is substantial evidence to support his conviction on count 2; there are no other arguable issues that would result in a reversal or modification of the judgment; and competent counsel has represented him on this appeal.” | substantial evidence | correct | agree with court The recited facts show a temporary restraining order was obtained on December 20, 2022, and Beepath went to the protected person's residence at midnight on December 29, yelling and using profanity, and was arrested nearby. Viewed in the light most favorable to the judgment, that evidence supports each element of a section 273.6 violation; the opinion's conclusion follows from the stated record. |
Independent Wende/Anders review of the entire record disclosed no arguable issues warranting reversal or modification (including competency findings, courtroom removal, sentencing, credits, and protective order)“Our independent review confirms there are no arguable issues on appeal. We affirm.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The court followed the Wende procedure: counsel filed a no-issue brief identifying one potential issue, the defendant was notified of his right to file a supplemental brief and did not, and the court reviewed the whole record. Nothing in the recited facts (two competency evaluations finding him competent, a 364-day sentence fully satisfied by 516 days of credit, fines deemed satisfied) suggests an overlooked error, though the opinion does not detail its analysis of those matters. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel files a brief raising no arguable issues, the Court of Appeal must independently review the entire record to determine whether any arguable issue exists.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous may so advise the court and request to withdraw, accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, and the court must then conduct its own examination of the record.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion correctly applies the Wende/Anders procedure, recites the facts and the potential issue counsel identified, and reaches a result the stated record supports. It is conclusory on the substantial evidence analysis and does not explain why the competency, courtroom removal, or sentencing matters present no arguable issue, but no identifiable legal error appears.
Opinion
Filed 10/18/24 P. v. Beepath 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, D082807
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCE415631)
NICHOLAS SEBASTIAN BEEPATH,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Sherry M. Thompson-Taylor, Judge. Affirmed. William D. Farber, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. I. INTRODUCTION Nicholas Sebastian Beepath appeals from his misdemeanor conviction for disobeying a domestic violence protective order in violation of Penal Code section 273.6, subdivision (a).1 Beepath’s appointed appellate counsel filed a 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. brief raising no arguable issues pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders). Beepath did not file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. Our independent review confirms there are no arguable issues on appeal. We affirm. II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On January 3, 2023, a felony complaint charged Beepath with making a criminal threat, a felony under section 422 (count 1), and disobeying a domestic violence protective order, a misdemeanor under section 273.6, subdivision (a) (count 2). On December 20, 2022, Donna Beepath (Donna) obtained a temporary restraining order against Beepath, which he violated without arrest about five times prior to December 29. On December 29, 2022, Beepath went to the Alpine residence of his mother Donna, where her husband and Beepath’s younger siblings also lived. During the December 29 incident, Beepath came to Donna’s house at about midnight. Donna could hear him outside, yelling and using profanity. She locked the door from inside, preventing him from using his key to enter the home. This caused Beepath to become “very upset.” As he continued to yell, Donna opened the front door and said to him, “You can get your things and go.” Beepath responded by allegedly raising his shoulders in a threatening manner and, according to Donna, angrily stating, “I’ll break your fucking neck.” Scared, Donna called 911. The police arrested Beepath that night, about a quarter mile from Donna’s residence. Prior to trial, the court ordered two mental competency examinations for Beepath pursuant to section 1368. Both times evaluators found Beepath competent to stand trial. During his ensuing trial, Beepath’s obstreperous behavior continually disrupted the proceedings, using profanity directed at 2 the trial judge and court personnel, which led to the court having Beepath removed from the courtroom. The jury could not reach a verdict on count 1 but found Beepath guilty of count 2. The trial court declared a mistrial as to count 1, and subsequently granted the prosecution’s motion to dismiss that count. On September 12, 2023, the trial court issued a criminal protective order against Beepath in favor of Donna for a seven-year term. That same day, the court proceeded with immediate sentencing at Beepath’s request. It sentenced him to 364 days on count 2, then gave him credit for time served based on 258 days of actual custody credit and 258 days of local conduct credit, for a total of 516 days of presentence custody credit. The court also found all fines and fees were satisfied by his custody credit. Beepath filed a timely notice of appeal. His appointed appellate counsel filed a brief raising no arguable issues and asking us to independently review the record for error under Wende and Anders. Counsel identified one potential issue to assist our review: whether substantial evidence supports Beepath’s conviction on count 2. Both appellate counsel and our court informed Beepath of his right to file a supplemental brief, but he has not done so. III. DISCUSSION We have reviewed the entire record as required under Wende and Anders, and considered the potential issue raised by Beepath’s appointed counsel. We conclude there is substantial evidence to support his conviction on count 2; there are no other arguable issues that would result in a reversal or modification of the judgment; and competent counsel has represented him on this appeal.
3 IV. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.
RUBIN, J.
WE CONCUR:
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
DO, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12