People v. Gonzales CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D083183 · 2025-02-07 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD300439
Trial judge: Evan P. Kirvin
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Truc T. Do, Buchanan

Analysis

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

The trial court accepted a stipulated guilty plea and granted probation with a 365-day jail term and domestic violence program. The appellate court affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record found no arguable issues for reversal.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of request to modify criminal protective order “Whether the court erred in denying Gonzales’s request to modify the criminal protective order.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The court identified the issue as a potential merit but concluded after independent review that no arguable issues for reversal existed, effectively finding the trial court's ruling correct or unreviewable on the merits.
Granting of probation and acceptance of plea agreement “The court granted Gonzales probation as contemplated by the plea agreement.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The court noted the plea was stipulated and omitted a statement of facts, implying no challenge to the validity of the plea or the probation terms was found arguable during the Wende review.

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 independent court review when no meritorious issues exist.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it follows the standard Wende/Anders protocol for unpublished appeals where counsel finds no merit. However, it provides no substantive legal analysis or reasoning for why the identified issue regarding the protective order was not arguable, relying solely on the conclusion of the independent review.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:29Z · confidence low

The trial court accepted Paul Gonzales's guilty plea to corporal injury to a spouse (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)) and child cruelty (§ 273a, subd. (b)), placed him on probation with 365 days in jail and a 52-week domestic violence program, and denied his request to modify the criminal protective order. On appeal, counsel filed a Wende brief, Gonzales filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed the judgment.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Grant of probation pursuant to the stipulated plea agreement (judgment entered on guilty plea) “The court granted Gonzales probation as contemplated by the plea agreement.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The sentence matched the negotiated plea; under Wende independent review, the court found no arguable error. Nothing in the opinion suggests the plea or sentence departed from the agreement or was unauthorized, so affirmance follows.
Denial of Gonzales's request to modify the criminal protective order “Whether the court erred in denying Gonzales’s request to modify the criminal protective order.”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion identifies this as the Anders issue counsel flagged but gives no facts about the request, the basis for denial, or the applicable standard (ordinarily abuse of discretion). The court simply states it found no arguable issue after independent review. Without any record detail in the opinion, I cannot identify a specific legal error, but I also cannot verify the conclusion.

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 but 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 filed a no-issue brief identifying one possible issue, the defendant was invited to file a supplemental brief and did not, and the court independently reviewed the record and affirmed. It is procedurally sound but provides no analysis of the flagged protective-order issue and no facts, so a reader cannot evaluate the merits of that issue from the opinion itself.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 2/7/25 P. v. Gonzales 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, D083183

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD300439)

PAUL GONZALES,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Evan P. Kirvin, Judge. Affirmed. Pauline E. Villanueva, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Paul Gonzales entered into a plea agreement in which he pleaded guilty to one count of corporal injury to a spouse (Pen. Code,1 § 273.5, subd. (a)) and one count of cruelty to a child (§ 273a, subd. (b)). The parties 1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code. agreed Gonzales would be placed on probation subject to serving 365 days in jail and attending 52 weeks of a domestic violence prevention program. The court granted Gonzales probation as contemplated by the plea agreement. Gonzales 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 asks the court to independently review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Gonzales the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. This case arises from a stipulated guilty plea thus we will omit a statement of facts. DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and requests 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 a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Whether the court erred in denying Gonzales’s request to modify the criminal protective order. We have reviewed the record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Gonzales on this appeal.

2 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

DO, J.

BUCHANAN, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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