People v. Edwards CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCS329307
- Trial judge
- Garry G. Haehnle
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Laurence D. Rubin (author), Richard D. Huffman, Sr., Truc T. Do
Analysis
The trial court denied Edwards's motion for a new trial based on insufficient evidence of force or fear, and subsequently struck his prior Oregon conviction as a strike prior before sentencing him to three years for robbery. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent Wende/Anders review, finding no arguable issues in the record.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of motion for new trial (insufficient evidence of force or fear for robbery)“Edwards moved for a new trial, arguing there was insufficient evidence of force or fear to support his robbery conviction. The trial court disagreed and denied the motion.” | unclear | not reached | unsure The appellate court did not explicitly analyze the sufficiency of the evidence or the trial court's denial of the motion for new trial in its discussion. It simply stated that its independent review confirmed there were no arguable issues on appeal, effectively bypassing a specific standard of review analysis for this specific ruling. |
Striking of prior Oregon conviction as a strike prior“The trial court also granted Edwards’s motion to strike the Oregon conviction as a strike prior.” | unclear | not reached | unsure The opinion notes the trial court granted the motion to strike the prior. The appellate court did not review this specific ruling for error, nor did it address the potential issue raised by counsel regarding whether the findings were moot. It treated the striking as a factual background element that rendered any potential prosecutorial error harmless. |
Prosecutor's reference to nonfinal criminal cases“Any error in that regard would be harmless because the trial court struck Edwards’s prior strike.” | unclear | harmless error | agree with court The court addressed the claim that the prosecutor improperly referenced nonfinal cases. It concluded that even if there was error, it was harmless because the trial court had already struck the prior strike conviction, rendering the reference immaterial to the outcome. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires independent review of the record by appellate counsel when no issues are raised.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires independent review of the record by appellate counsel when no issues are raised.
- relied: People v. Hoyt (2020) 8 Cal.5th 892 — Defines the objective standard of reasonableness for ineffective assistance of counsel claims.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as a Wende/Anders brief, correctly applying the standard for independent review. However, it is 'sound with gaps' because it fails to explicitly address the specific legal arguments raised in the supplemental brief (such as the sufficiency of evidence for robbery) with the requisite legal analysis, instead relying on a blanket statement that no arguable issues exist.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court convicted Edwards by jury of robbery and burglary, denied his new trial motion challenging sufficiency of force or fear, struck his Oregon prior as both a serious felony and a strike, and sentenced him to the three-year midterm with the burglary sentence stayed under section 654. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief, Edwards filed a supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of motion for new trial based on insufficient evidence of force or fear for robbery“Edwards moved for a new trial, arguing there was insufficient evidence of force or fear to support his robbery conviction. The trial court disagreed and denied the motion.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The opinion recites that Edwards displayed a screwdriver when confronted and that Pineda later reported a threat to kill, which supports a fear finding even though the jury acquitted on the threat counts; the court does not analyze the issue expressly but states it found no arguable issue after Wende review. Without the record I cannot identify a specific error. |
Finding that the Oregon prior constituted attempted robbery or robbery under California law (serious felony/strike)“Edwards admitted the prior Oregon conviction and the trial court found that it constituted attempted robbery, if not robbery, under California law.” | unclear | not reached | agree with court The trial court struck the prior both as a serious felony enhancement and as a strike, so any error in characterizing the Oregon conviction had no effect on the sentence; counsel flagged mootness and the court reasonably found no arguable issue. |
Prosecutor's reference to Edwards's nonfinal criminal cases in opposing the Romero motion to strike the prior strike“Any error in that regard would be harmless because the trial court struck Edwards’s prior strike.” | unclear | harmless error | agree with court The references were made only in the context of the motion to strike the prior, which the trial court granted in Edwards's favor, so no prejudice could flow from them. |
Claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel“there is no indication that trial counsel’s representation of Edwards “ ‘fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms’ ” (People v. Hoyt (2020) 8 Cal.5th 892, 958)” | de novo | correct | agree with court The court applied the Strickland deficient-performance standard as stated in Hoyt; Edwards's conclusory supplemental-brief assertions, with acquittals on two counts and a struck strike, give no record basis for deficient performance or prejudice. |
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 frivolous must so advise the court and furnish a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
- relied: People v. Hoyt (2020) 8 Cal.5th 892 — To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court followed the Wende/Anders procedure, addressed each of the defendant's supplemental contentions, and correctly treated the prior-conviction issues as immaterial because the strike and enhancement were struck. It did not discuss People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 or expressly analyze the force-or-fear sufficiency question, but the recited facts (screwdriver display, threat to kill) make the result defensible.
Opinion
Filed 3/10/25 P. v. Edwards 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, D084271
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCS329307)
ROGER TEDI EDWARDS,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Garry G. Haehnle, Judge. Affirmed. John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Roger Tedi Edwards appeals from his robbery and burglary convictions. His appointed appellate counsel filed an opening brief raising no arguable issues pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders). Edwards also filed a supplemental brief on his own behalf. Our independent review confirms there are no arguable issues on appeal. We therefore affirm the conviction.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In 2023, Edwards broke into the restaurant at Enagic Golf Course in Eastlake. When confronted by Enagic employee Jorge Pineda, Edwards displayed a screwdriver and left the restaurant with several bottles of liquor and a plate of food. Speaking to a responding officer, Pineda denied that Edwards threatened him. However, Pineda later told a detective that when Edwards pulled out the screwdriver, Edwards said, “ ‘If you call the police, I’m going to kill you.’ ”
Prosecutors charged Edwards with robbery (Pen. Code,1 § 211; count 1), burglary (§ 459; count 2), making a criminal threat (§ 422; count 3), and attempting to dissuade a witness (§ 136.1, subd. (b)(1); count 4). The People also alleged that Edwards had a prior robbery conviction from Oregon, which constituted a serious felony prior and a strike prior (§ 667, subds. (a)(1) & (b)–(i)). At Edwards’s trial in 2024, the jury found him guilty of counts 1 and 2, and not guilty of counts 3 and 4. Edwards moved for a new trial, arguing there was insufficient evidence of force or fear to support his robbery conviction. The trial court disagreed and denied the motion. Edwards admitted the prior Oregon conviction and the trial court found that it constituted attempted robbery, if not robbery, under California law. However, the People did not seek the potential five-year enhancement for the offense (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)) and the trial court struck it as a serious felony prior. The trial court also granted Edwards’s motion to strike the Oregon 1 All subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2 conviction as a strike prior. The trial court then sentenced Edwards to the three-year midterm for the robbery and stayed execution of his sentence for the burglary pursuant to section 654. Edwards filed a timely notice of appeal. His appointed appellate counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking us to review the record for error under Wende and Anders. Counsel identified three potential issues to assist us in our independent review: (1) whether Edwards’s Oregon conviction was a violent or serious felony under California law; (2) whether the trial court’s findings regarding the Oregon conviction were moot because the trial court struck that prior conviction; and (3) whether the trial court erred in denying Edwards’s motion for new trial. Edwards filed his own supplemental brief, alleging harassment and brutality by law enforcement officers. Edwards also argues he was framed, police officers bribed Pineda to testify, and the prosecutor offered false evidence and improperly referenced Edwards’s nonfinal criminal cases. Finally, Edwards asserts he received ineffective assistance of counsel.
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders, and considered the issues identified by Edwards and his counsel. We find no arguable issue that would result in a reversal or modification of the conviction. Regarding the issues raised by Edwards, his allegations of law enforcement harassment and brutality are not supported by the record, nor does Edwards explain how these allegations would warrant reversal of his convictions. Edwards’s claims of being framed, Pineda’s bribery, and false evidence are likewise unsupported. As for the assertion that the prosecutor improperly referenced Edwards’s nonfinal criminal cases, that relates to the 3 prosecutor’s use of Edwards’s criminal history in opposing Edwards’s request to strike his prior strike. Any error in that regard would be harmless because the trial court struck Edwards’s prior strike. Finally, there is no indication that trial counsel’s representation of Edwards “ ‘fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms’ ” (People v. Hoyt (2020) 8 Cal.5th 892, 958); therefore, his claims of ineffective assistance counsel fail. Based on the foregoing, we affirm the convictions. Competent counsel has represented Edwards on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
RUBIN, J.
WE CONCUR:
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
DO, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Hoyt S113653 · 2020-01-30
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12