The People v. Peralta CA4/1

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T06:50Z · confidence low

The trial court accepted Peralta's guilty plea to transporting methamphetamine and sentenced him to two years in local incarceration, including a $154 booking fee. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after finding no reasonably arguable issues on independent review.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Imposition of a $154 booking fee pursuant to Government Code section 29550.1 without a finding of ability to pay “Counsel identifies as a possible, but not arguable, issue: whether the trial court erred by imposing a $154 booking fee pursuant to Government Code section 29550.1 without a finding of ability to pay.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The court did not analyze the merits of the fee issue, classifying it as 'not arguable' under the Wende/Anders framework. Because the court did not apply a standard of review or provide legal reasoning for the fee's validity, the ruling is effectively unreviewed on the merits in this opinion.

Authorities

• relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Establishes the procedure for appointed appellate counsel to file a brief identifying potential issues and requesting the court to independently review the record for error when no arguable issues are found.
• relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to file a brief identifying any arguable issues and allows the court to affirm if the record contains no reasonably arguable issues.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as a Wende/Anders review, correctly stating that counsel identified no arguable issues and that the court's independent review found none. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' analysis because it dismisses the specific statutory fee issue without citing any authority regarding the constitutionality or statutory requirements of Government Code section 29550.1, relying solely on the 'not arguable' label.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

Report

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:31Z · confidence low

The trial court accepted Hector Peralta's guilty plea to transporting methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)), dismissed count 2, sentenced him to a stipulated two years in local custody, and imposed a $154 booking fee under Government Code section 29550.1 without an ability-to-pay finding. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief raising no arguable issues, Peralta 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
Entry of judgment on guilty plea to Health and Safety Code section 11379, subdivision (a) and imposition of the stipulated two-year local custody sentence “A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738 has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues, and Peralta has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The court conducted the independent record review required by Wende and Anders after counsel filed a no-issue brief and the defendant declined to file a supplemental brief. The sentence matched the plea agreement stipulation, and nothing in the opinion suggests any defect in the plea or sentence. The procedure followed is the one Wende prescribes, and the opinion recites that it was followed.
Imposition of a $154 booking fee under Government Code section 29550.1 without a finding of ability to pay “whether the trial court erred by imposing a $154 booking fee pursuant to Government Code section 29550.1 without a finding of ability to pay.”	unclear	correct	agree with court Counsel flagged this only as a possible, not arguable, issue, and the court implicitly agreed by finding no arguable issues. Unlike Government Code sections 29550, subdivision (d)(2) and 29550.2, section 29550.1 contains no express ability-to-pay requirement, so the trial court's omission of such a finding is not a facial statutory error. In addition, the opinion does not indicate any objection below, and the California Supreme Court held in 2013 that an unpreserved challenge to the factual basis of a booking fee is forfeited. The court did not explain its reasoning, which is permissible in a Wende affirmance, but the result is consistent with the governing law.

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 for arguable issues before affirming.
• 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 conducts its own examination of the record.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the Wende/Anders procedure, identifies the single possible issue counsel flagged, notes the defendant was invited to and did not file a supplemental brief, and affirms after independent review. It offers no analysis of the booking fee question, which is acceptable in a Wende disposition but leaves the reader to supply the statutory and forfeiture reasoning that supports the result.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Report