People v. Young CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of Riverside County · No. RIF2000152
- Trial judge
- Ronald I. Toff
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Judith D. McConnell, Joan K. Irion
Analysis
The trial court accepted a plea agreement in which the defendant pleaded guilty to a false instrument charge and was granted probation with 364 days in custody. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende found no arguable issues for reversal.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Sentencing following the plea agreement“Whether the trial court properly sentenced Young following the plea agreement.” | unclear | not reached | unsure The court identified the issue as a potential ground for appeal but concluded after independent review that no arguable issues for reversal existed, effectively finding no error in the sentencing. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to independently review the record for error when no arguable issues are identified.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires counsel to file a brief identifying any arguable issues and request the court to review the record.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for appointed counsel appeals. However, it provides no substantive legal analysis or reasoning for why the sentencing was proper, relying solely on the negative finding of no arguable issues.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court accepted Young's guilty plea to a false instrument charge (Pen. Code, § 115), ordered $4,300 in victim restitution, and granted probation subject to 364 days in custody with 1,096 days of custody credits. On appeal, counsel filed a Wende brief, the appellate court independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed the judgment.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Sentencing following the plea agreement (grant of probation with 364 days custody, custody credits, and $4,300 victim restitution)“Whether the trial court properly sentenced Young following the plea agreement.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The court conducted the independent record review required by Wende and Anders and found no arguable issue with the sentence. The opinion recites no facts about the sentence beyond the probation grant, custody term, credits, and stipulated restitution, so there is nothing in the opinion to show error; the Wende procedure was properly followed, including inviting a supplemental brief from the defendant. |
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 lacks merit may so advise the court and should identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the standard Wende/Anders procedure: counsel identified a possible issue, the defendant was invited to file a supplemental brief and did not, and the court independently reviewed the record and found no arguable issues. The result is defensible, though the opinion is summary and does not discuss the sentencing issue or the record in any detail.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
record incompleteOpinion
Filed 12/20/24 P. v. Young 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, D084254
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. RIF2000152)
NATHAN IVAN YOUNG,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Ronald I. Toff, Judge. Affirmed. Jill Kent, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Nathan Ivan Young entered into a plea agreement in which he pleaded guilty to a false instrument charge (Pen. Code, § 115) and agreed to pay victim restitution of $4,300. Young was granted probation subject to 364 days in custody with 1,096 days of custody credits. Young filed a timely notice of appeal and obtained a certificate of probable cause. 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 offered Young the opportunity to 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 a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Whether the trial court properly sentenced Young following the plea agreement. We have 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 Young on this appeal.
2 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
IRION, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12