People v. Stengel CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCS324849
- Trial judge
- Alejandro Morales
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), William S. Dato, Julia C. Kelety
Analysis
The trial court executed a suspended three-year sentence after the defendant absconded from drug court and rejected his request for a split sentence. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
Trial court's rejection of defendant's request for a split sentence following the execution of the suspended term.“Whether the trial court abused its discretion in declining to order a split sentence following the execution of the suspended sentence.” | abuse of discretion | not reached | unsure The appellate court did not explicitly state that the trial court did not abuse its discretion; rather, it stated it had not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal after an independent review. In Wende cases, the court must identify and resolve any arguable issues. By stating no arguable issues were found, the court implicitly rejected the potential issue raised by counsel, but did not provide specific legal reasoning or analysis regarding the split sentence request itself. |
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 if counsel finds none.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires counsel to file a brief identifying arguable issues and the court to independently review the record for error if counsel finds none.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it follows the Wende/Anders protocol by stating that counsel filed a brief, the court reviewed the record, and no arguable issues were found. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' opinion because it fails to provide any specific legal analysis or reasoning for why the trial court's rejection of the split sentence was not an abuse of discretion, merely stating that no arguable issues were discovered.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court, after Stengel pleaded guilty to a Health and Safety Code section 11352 offense and absconded from drug court, executed the suspended three-year term and denied his request for a split sentence. On appeal, counsel filed a Wende brief, the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Execution of the previously suspended three-year prison term after Stengel absconded from drug court“Eventually Stengel absconded from drug court and the court ordered the suspended three-year term to be executed.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The plea agreement expressly provided for a three-year sentence if Stengel was rejected by drug court, and the opinion recites that he absconded. Executing the agreed-upon suspended term is consistent with the bargain, and the opinion identifies no procedural defect. The record as described is too thin to independently verify the revocation procedure, but nothing in the opinion suggests error. |
Denial of Stengel's request for a split sentence under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (h)“Whether the trial court abused its discretion in declining to order a split sentence following the execution of the suspended sentence.” | abuse of discretion | correct | agree with court Whether to impose a split sentence under section 1170(h)(5) is discretionary, and a defendant who absconded from a drug court program presents an obvious basis for a court to conclude that a period of mandatory supervision is inappropriate. The Court of Appeal gave no explanation beyond stating it found no arguable issue, so the result is defensible but unexplained. The opinion also describes the offense as possession for sale while citing section 11352 and quoting a plea admission of importation, a minor internal inconsistency that does not affect the result. |
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 error before affirming.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal frivolous should file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, to assist the court's independent review.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court followed the Wende/Anders procedure, identified the one potential issue counsel flagged, and affirmed after independent review, which is a defensible result given that the sentence matched the plea bargain and the split-sentence decision was discretionary. However, the opinion offers no reasoning on the split-sentence issue and only a skeletal recitation of facts and procedure, leaving the reader unable to evaluate the basis for the trial court's exercise of discretion.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
record incompleteOpinion
Filed 2/19/25 P. v. Stengel 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, D083604
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCS324849)
LARRY STEWART STENGEL,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Alejandro Morales, Judge. Affirmed. Jill Kent, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Larry Stewart Stengel entered into a plea agreement in which he pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a controlled substance for sale (Health and Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)). Stengel was to be ordered to drug court and would be subject to a three-year sentence if rejected by drug court. The remaining counts were dismissed. The court ordered Stengel to drug court where he was accepted. Eventually Stengel absconded from drug court and the court ordered the suspended three-year term to be executed. The court rejected Stengel’s request for a split sentence. Stengel 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 Stengel the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. In his change of plea, Stengel stated: “[I] did willfully import a controlled substance into California[,] to wit[,] fentanyl.” 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 a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Whether the trial court abused its discretion in declining to order a split sentence following the execution of the suspended sentence. 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 Stengel on this appeal.
2 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
DATO, J.
KELETY, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12