People v. McCoy CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D084026 · 2025-02-06 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of Riverside County · No. BAF2200234, BAF2300374
Trial judge: Joshlyn R. Pulliam
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Joan K. Irion, Truc T. Do

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T03:53Z · confidence low

The trial court revoked McCoy's probation and sentenced her to concurrent prison terms, denying her request for additional custody credits beyond the time actually served due to an early release under a federal consent decree. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, finding no arguable issues for reversal.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of additional custody credits for the jail sentence despite early release under a federal consent decree. “The court disagreed and sentenced her to concurrent prison terms for the two convictions with credits for time served.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The appellate court stated it independently reviewed the record and found no arguable issues for reversal, but it did not provide specific legal reasoning or analysis regarding the custody credit issue.
Limitation of conduct credits pursuant to section 2933.1 due to a concurrent sentence involving a violent felony. “Whether McCoy’s conduct credits were properly limited pursuant to section 2933.1 due to her concurrent sentence involving a violent felony.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The appellate court listed this as a potential issue considered by counsel but concluded after independent review that no arguable issues for reversal were discovered, without providing specific legal analysis.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appellate counsel to file a brief identifying arguable issues or, if none exist, to request the court to independently review the record for error.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires counsel to identify potential issues for the court's independent review when filing a no-merit brief.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound in following the Wende/Anders protocol for appointed counsel appeals. However, it provides no substantive legal analysis for the two specific issues identified by counsel, relying solely on the conclusion that no arguable issues were found.

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 Riverside County Superior Court revoked McCoy's probation on her felony vandalism and robbery convictions, rejected her request for custody credits for the full jail term imposed (rather than actual time served after an early release under a federal consent decree), and sentenced her to concurrent prison terms with conduct credits limited under section 2933.1. On appeal, counsel filed a Wende brief, McCoy filed nothing, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Revocation of probation in both cases after an evidentiary hearing “The court held an evidentiary hearing and McCoy’s probation was revoked.”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion does not describe the evidence or the grounds for revocation; it simply reports that a hearing was held and probation revoked, and the Wende review found no arguable issue. Nothing in the opinion suggests error, but the record described is too thin to independently verify.
Denial of custody credits for the full jail term imposed where McCoy was released early under a federal consent decree; credit awarded only for actual time served “The court disagreed and sentenced her to concurrent prison terms for the two convictions with credits for time served.”	unclear	correct	agree with court Under Penal Code section 2900.5 a defendant receives credit for days actually spent in custody, not for a term that was imposed but not served; an early release does not create custody that never occurred. The trial court's limitation to time actually served is consistent with that rule, and the appellate court reasonably found no arguable issue.
Limitation of presentence conduct credits to 15 percent under section 2933.1 because the concurrent sentence included a violent felony (robbery) “Whether McCoy’s conduct credits were properly limited pursuant to section 2933.1 due to her concurrent sentence involving a violent felony.”	unclear	correct	agree with court Robbery is a violent felony under section 667.5, subdivision (c), and section 2933.1 limits conduct credit to 15 percent for any person convicted of a violent felony, applying to the entire sentence including concurrent non-violent counts. The trial court's application of the limit to both cases is consistent with the statute.

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 lacking in merit should file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal to assist the court's review.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the standard Wende/Anders procedure, sets out the procedural history and the two potential issues counsel identified, and affirms after independent review; that is a defensible result on the issues flagged. It does not, however, explain why the credit issues lack merit or cite the governing credit statutes, leaving the reader to supply the analysis.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 2/6/25 P. v. McCoy 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, D084026

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. Nos. BAF2200234, BAF2300374) CIRA ANNETTE MCCOY, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Joshlyn R. Pulliam, Judge. Affirmed.

Robert L. Hernandez, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Cira Annette McCoy pleaded guilty in two cases to felony vandalism (Pen. Code,1 § 594, subd. (a)) and robbery (§ 211).

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code. McCoy was granted probation for both the vandalism and the robbery and sentenced to serve 364 days in jail for both crimes, with the terms to run concurrently. Thereafter the prosecution brought a formal motion to revoke probation in both cases. The court held an evidentiary hearing and McCoy’s probation was revoked. Apparently, McCoy was released from jail early on the vandalism count because of a federal consent decree for the jail. She argued at the sentencing hearing that she should be given custody credits for the term imposed instead of only the time served. The court disagreed and sentenced her to concurrent prison terms for the two convictions with credits for time served. McCoy filed a timely notice of appeal. 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 has asked the court to independently review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered McCoy the opportunity to file her own brief on appeal, but she has not responded. DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to independently 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 two possible issues that were considered in evaluating to potential merits of this appeal. 1. Whether McCoy is entitled to additional custody credits for the jail sentence, which was ordered, even though she was released early by federal order.

2 2. Whether McCoy’s conduct credits were properly limited pursuant to section 2933.1 due to her concurrent sentence involving a violent felony. We have independently reviewed the record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented McCoy on this appeal. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

IRION, J.

DO, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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