People v. Borgen CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D083606 · 2025-01-15 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD290273
Trial judge: Kimberlee A. Logotta
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), William S. Dato, Buchanan

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T03:55Z · confidence low

The trial court denied the defendant's final request for self-representation and sentenced him to 12 years and 8 months in prison pursuant to a plea agreement. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record under People v. Wende, finding no arguable issues for reversal.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of defendant's final request for self-representation “His final request to again represent himself was denied by the trial court which determined Borgen’s repeated use of temporary self-representation was for the purpose and was not an unequivocal desire for self-representation.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The appellate court identified this as a potential issue for review but concluded after independent review that it was not an arguable issue for reversal. The opinion does not explicitly state the standard of review applied (e.g., abuse of discretion) or provide detailed legal analysis for why the trial court's determination was correct, relying instead on the general Wende review finding no error.
Denial of defendant's request for a sentencing alternative “2. Whether the court erred in denying Borgen’s request for a sentencing alternative rather than the sentence to which the parties stipulated.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The appellate court listed this as a second potential issue considered by counsel but did not provide specific reasoning or a standard of review for why this issue was not arguable. The court simply stated it had not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to file a brief identifying arguable issues and the court to independently review the record for error when counsel finds none.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires counsel to identify potential issues and the court to conduct an independent review of the record to ensure no arguable issues are overlooked.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound in that it follows the required Wende/Anders protocol for appointed counsel appeals, explicitly stating that the court reviewed the record and found no arguable issues. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' opinion because it fails to provide any specific legal reasoning or standard of review for the two issues identified by counsel, leaving the reader without insight into why those specific claims were not arguable.

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 Borgen's no contest plea to two burglaries and a robbery with an on-bail enhancement, imposed the stipulated 12-year-8-month sentence, and had earlier denied his final request to represent himself on the ground that his repeated, temporary invocations of self-representation were not unequivocal. On appeal, counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief, the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of Borgen's final request for self-representation (Faretta request) as equivocal and manipulative “Borgen’s repeated use of temporary self-representation was for the purpose and was not an unequivocal desire for self-representation.”	unclear	correct	agree with court A Faretta request must be unequivocal, and a trial court may deny a request made to manipulate or delay proceedings (People v. Marshall (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1). The opinion recites that the trial court made such a finding, and nothing in the opinion suggests the finding lacked support; moreover, the later no contest plea likely limits review of this pre-plea ruling. The opinion gives almost no detail of the record, however, so the conclusion cannot be independently verified.
Denial of Borgen's request for a sentencing alternative rather than the stipulated sentence “Whether the court erred in denying Borgen’s request for a sentencing alternative rather than the sentence to which the parties stipulated.”	unclear	correct	agree with court Borgen agreed to a specified 12-year-8-month sentence as part of the plea bargain; a defendant who stipulates to a sentence generally cannot challenge it on appeal, and such a challenge attacks the validity of the plea and requires a certificate of probable cause (People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68). The court imposed the agreed term, so no arguable error appears.
Entry of judgment on the plea; Wende/Anders independent review found no arguable issues “We have reviewed the record for error as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The court followed the Wende procedure: counsel identified possible issues, the court reviewed the entire record and found nothing arguable. Borgen's factual basis admission supports the plea. The opinion is conclusory, as Wende opinions typically are, so agreement rests on the procedure rather than on any stated 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 before affirming.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal without merit must file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, and the court must then examine the record.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion applies the Wende/Anders procedure correctly and the two issues counsel flagged (denial of an equivocal Faretta request and a challenge to a stipulated sentence) are not arguable on this record as described. It offers no analysis or citation on either issue and contains a garbled sentence describing the Faretta ruling, leaving gaps though the result is defensible.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 1/15/25 P. v. Borgen 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, D083606

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD290273)

LOUIS C. BORGEN, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Kimberlee A. Logotta, Judge. Affirmed. Matthew Johnson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Louis C. Borgen entered into a plea agreement in which he pleaded no contest to two counts of burglary (Pen. Code,1 § 459) and one count of robbery of an inhabited building (§§ 211 & 212.5, subd. (a)). Borgen also admitted the 1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code. on-bail enhancement (§ 12022.1, subd. (a)). The parties stipulated to a sentence of 12 years and eight months. The court sentenced Borgen to prison as agreed in the plea agreement. Prior to his plea, Borgen had been allowed to represent himself several times. His final request to again represent himself was denied by the trial court which determined Borgen’s repeated use of temporary self- representation was for the purpose and was not an unequivocal desire for self-representation. 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 as mandated by Wende. In his change of plea, Borgen said he “entered two separate inhabited dwelling houses with the intent to commit larceny therein, and in one of them took property not belonging to me, and that party was present in their home when I entered. And I was then on OR or on bail release.” 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 of the record, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified two possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: 1. Whether the court erred by denying Borgen’s final request for self-representation. 2. Whether the court erred in denying Borgen’s request for a sentencing alternative rather than the sentence to which the parties stipulated.

2 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 Borgen on this appeal. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

DATO, J.

BUCHANAN, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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