People v. Yebio CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD291989
- Trial judge
- Evan Kirvin
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Truc T. Do (author), Michele M. Castillo, Julia C. Kelety
Analysis
The trial court convicted the defendant of assault with a deadly weapon and battery resulting in serious bodily injury, and sentenced him to a total prison term of eight years. On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, finding no reasonably arguable issues.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Affirmance of judgment of conviction and sentence“Based on our independent review of the record, we find no reasonably arguable appellate issues and affirm the judgment.” | de novo | not reached | agree with court The court applied the Wende standard, requiring an independent review of the record to identify any reasonably arguable issues. The court concluded that no such issues existed, thereby affirming the lower court's judgment. This is the standard procedure for appointed appellate counsel in California when no issues are identified in the brief. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Establishes the duty of appointed appellate counsel to file a brief identifying issues or, if none exist, to invite the court to conduct an independent review of the record.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to file a brief identifying any arguable issues, even if frivolous, and to notify the client of the right to file a supplemental brief.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for appointed counsel. The court explicitly states it conducted an independent review of the record and found no reasonably arguable issues, which is the required standard for affirmance in this context.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionAfter a jury convicted Abraham Yebio of assault with a deadly weapon and battery with serious bodily injury against Tiffany M. (with great bodily injury and knife-use enhancements) and deadlocked on the counts involving Crystal F., he pled guilty to one assault count as to Crystal and was resentenced to an aggregate eight-year prison term, with the count 5 term stayed under Penal Code section 654. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief, Yebio filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no reasonably arguable issues, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Judgment of conviction on counts 4 and 5 (assault with a deadly weapon and battery with serious bodily injury against Tiffany M.) with enhancement and aggravating-circumstance findings, reviewed under Wende/Anders independent review“Based on our independent review of the record, we find no reasonably arguable appellate issues and affirm the judgment.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The opinion follows the Wende/Anders procedure: counsel filed a no-issue brief with a statement of the case and facts, the defendant was notified and did not file a supplemental brief, and the court independently reviewed the record. The recited evidence (Tiffany's testimony, eyewitness L.L. seeing the stabbing, the bloody knife, medical evidence of a stab wound requiring sutures) amply supports the convictions, and the jury was instructed on all relevant defenses. Nothing in the opinion suggests an arguable issue was overlooked. |
Sentencing and resentencing: imposition of middle terms, rejection of lower term under section 1170, subdivision (b)(6) despite trauma history, consecutive one-third subordinate term on count 4, and stay of count 5 under section 654, resulting in an aggregate eight-year term“the court found the imposition of the lower term would be contrary to the interest of justice.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The trial court made the findings required by section 1170, subdivision (b)(6): it found the trauma history was not a contributing factor and, alternatively, that the lower term would be contrary to the interests of justice. The middle term was selected with the jury having found an aggravating circumstance, so no Sixth Amendment or section 1170(b)(2) problem arises. The arithmetic (3 + 3 on count 2 as base, plus one-third of the middle term and one-third of the enhancement on count 4) yields eight years consistent with section 1170.1, and the section 654 stay of count 5 is appropriate for a single act against the same victim. The opinion does not expressly analyze these points, but the recited record discloses no error. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel files a brief raising no issues, the Court of Appeal must independently review the entire record to determine whether there are any arguable issues.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous may so advise the court and request leave to withdraw, accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, after which the court independently examines the record.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion follows the Wende/Anders procedure correctly, notifies the defendant of his right to file a supplemental brief, sets out the facts and procedural history as required for a no-issue opinion, and independently reviews a record that, as described, shows strong evidence of guilt and a lawful sentence. It does not discuss any specific potential issue (for example, the resentencing after the plea to count 2 or the section 1170(b)(6) findings), but in a Wende affirmance no such discussion is required and nothing in the recited record suggests an arguable error.
Opinion
Filed 3/4/25 P. v. Yebio 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, D082695
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD291989)
ABRAHAM YEBIO,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Evan Kirvin, Judge. Affirmed. Laura Arnold, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Abraham Yebio appeals from a judgment of conviction after a jury trial. His appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders). We notified Yebio of his right to file a supplemental brief, and he has not done so. Based on our independent review of the record, we find no reasonably arguable appellate issues and affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Yebio was charged with 5 counts involving two victims, Crystal F. and Tiffany M. As to Crystal, Yebio was charged in count 1 with attempted willful, deliberate and premeditated murder (Pen. Code,1 §§ 664/187, subd. (a), 189); in count 2 with assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)); in count 3 with battery resulting in serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d)). It was alleged as to counts 1 and 2 that he personally inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)), and as to counts 1 and 3 that he personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon (a knife) (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). The jury deadlocked as to all counts involving Crystal and the trial court declared a mistrial as to these counts. As to Tiffany, Yebio was charged in count 4 with assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)) with the allegation he personally inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)); and in count 5 with battery resulting in serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d)) with allegations he personally inflicted great bodily injury (§ 1192.7, subd. (c)(8)) and that he personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon (a knife) (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). The jury convicted Yebio of both counts and all enhancement allegations involving Tiffany. As to both counts, the jury further found true the aggravating circumstance that Yebio used great violence or committed an act revealing a high degree of cruelty, viciousness, or callousness (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(1)). It found not true that as to both counts Yebio posed a serious danger to society (id., rule 4.421(b)(1)).
1 All further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2 At sentencing on July 17, 2023, the trial court imposed a total prison term of six years. The court found the only aggravating circumstance was that Yebio used great violence and committed an act showing a high degree of cruelty, viciousness, or callousness and the only mitigating circumstance was that he had no prior criminal history. The court further found Yebio had a history involving psychological, physical or childhood trauma but it was not a contributing factor in the commission of the offenses, and even if a contributing factor, the court found the imposition of the lower term would be contrary to the interest of justice. Considering all these factors, the court imposed the middle term of three years on count 4 plus three years for the section 12022.7, subdivision (a) enhancement, for a total of six years. The court imposed the middle term of three years on count 5 plus one year for the section 12022, subdivision (b)(1) enhancement but stayed the term pursuant to section 654. On September 13, 2023, Yebio pled guilty to count 2, assault with a deadly weapon as to Crystal, and admitted the section 12022.7, subdivision (a) enhancement, which were pending retrial along with the other counts on which the jury deadlocked. On October 12, 2023, Yebio was resentenced to a total prison term of 8 years. The court selected count 2 as the new base term, imposed the middle term of three years plus three years on the section 12022.7, subdivision (a) enhancement; imposed a one-year subordinate term for count 4, plus one year for the section 12022.7, subdivision (a) enhancement. The court again imposed the middle term of three years on count 5 plus one year for the section 12022, subdivision (b)(1) enhancement but stayed the term pursuant to section 654. We summarize primarily the evidence underlying the conviction offenses.
3 On October 2, 2021, Tiffany M. was working as the security guard at an apartment complex that provided studio apartments to formerly unhoused individuals and low-income households. As Tiffany stood guard outside the building, she saw Crystal at the street corner talking to a resident. Yebio, also a resident, walked to the corner and waved Crystal over. Crystal walked over to him, the two talked, and then they walked back to the apartment building and entered together. It was about 2:30 in the morning. An hour later, at 3:30 a.m., Yebio came outside to smoke a cigarette and went back in. Minutes later, Crystal came out with her hand on her neck and there was “blood everywhere.” She was bleeding at her neck. Crystal asked Tiffany to call 911. Tiffany panicked and called her dispatch company instead. When Yebio came out, with blood on his clothes, Tiffany walked Crystal across the street away from him. Yebio followed them. At some point, Tiffany asked Crystal, “Did he do this?” and Crystal nodded her head. Tiffany repeatedly told Yebio “to stay away, to back off,” but he kept moving closer to them. The dispatch company “loop[ed]” in 911 while still on the call with Tiffany. Tiffany began to provide information to the 911 dispatcher, including a description of Yebio’s clothing, race, and age, while Yebio stood nearby. At some point, Tiffany turned her back on Yebio to look over her shoulder and check on Crystal. At that moment, Tiffany felt “two hits” to her back at the left side around her shoulder blade. She then felt “warm water being poured down [her] back” and realized she was bleeding because she had been stabbed. L.L. was visiting his girlfriend who lived at the apartment complex that night. He was awakened by loud noises, “banging” and “slamming” from the floor above him. When he and his girlfriend went down to the lobby and 4 outside the building, L.L. saw Yebio run “at the security guard with a knife” and when she turned, “he stabbed her in the back.” Fearing Yebio was “going to keep doing it,” L.L. went towards him and yelled, “Stop stabbing her.” Just then the police arrived. After Yebio was taken into custody, the police found a bloody knife on the ground underneath a truck in the vicinity of where Yebio was taken into custody. The knife was approximately eight inches long with a four-inch blade. Crystal confirmed it was the knife she brought into Yebio’s apartment.
Both Tiffany and Crystal were taken to the hospital.2 Tiffany received five sutures for an approximate two-centimeter stab wound to her back. It took about a month for her to heal, during which she was in daily pain. Yebio presented several character witnesses and testified in his defense. At 12:30 a.m. the day of the incident, he left his apartment to smoke on the street. He saw Crystal at the street corner, a woman he knew lived in a nearby tent. After overhearing another resident decline Crystal’s request to take a shower inside the resident’s apartment, he offered Crystal a shower in his apartment. They went to his apartment, she ate food he made for her, and they drank whiskey. Three hours later, Crystal went to take a shower and Yebio went downstairs to smoke. Downstairs, Yebio began to feel “unusual” with his memory “going in and out”; he believed Crystal drugged him. He went back up to his apartment and found Crystal holding his wallet. She got “angry 2 Crystal underwent surgery for an approximate 4-centimeter stab wound to the left side of her neck, resulting in a transected external jugular vein, a partially transected trachea, and a puncture to her upper right lung. Toxicology results showed she had a blood alcohol level of .15 and she was positive for THC, methamphetamine and fentanyl.
5 and vicious” and started pushing him when he asked her why she had his wallet. He hit his head on the kitchen cabinets. She came at him with her knife—the one found by the police—and they began struggling because he was trying to not get stabbed. As they struggled, Crystal fell on the bed and, he believed, “she got stabbed.” From there, he blacked out and does not remember anything else, including his encounter with Tiffany.3 DISCUSSION As mentioned, Yebio’s appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case and statement of facts, and urging no grounds for reversal of the judgment. Counsel invites this court to independently review the record for error. We have done so and conclude the record discloses no reasonably arguable appellate issues for reversal of the judgment and affirm. Competent counsel has represented Yebio in this appeal.
3 The jury was instructed on heat of passion and imperfect self-defense for the lesser included offense of attempted voluntary manslaughter, and the affirmative defenses of self-defense, accident, unconsciousness, voluntary and involuntary intoxication.
6 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.
DO, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
KELETY, J.
CASTILLO, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12