The People v. Harris CA4.1

California Court of Appeal · D062631 · 2013-09-13 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of Imperial County · No. JCF25248
Trial judge: William D. Lehman
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: delinquency
Panel: Cynthia Aaron (author), Alex C. McDonald, Judith D. McConnell

Analysis

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

The trial court accepted a guilty plea from Michael Harris for assault by a state prisoner, admitted one prior serious or violent felony conviction, and sentenced him to eight years in prison. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, finding no reasonably arguable issues of error.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Affirmance of the judgment following a Wende review “A review of the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issues listed pursuant to Anders, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues.”	de novo	not reached	agree with court The appellate court conducted an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende and found no reasonably arguable issues. The court affirmed the judgment because the record did not support any claim of error, and the defendant did not file a supplemental brief.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to conduct an independent review of the record for error when the defendant is represented by counsel who files a Wende brief.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires counsel to file a brief identifying any arguable issues, even if they are frivolous, and to request leave to withdraw.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it follows the established Wende/Anders protocol for reviewing cases where appointed counsel finds no arguable issues. The court correctly states that it reviewed the record and found no error, which is the standard outcome in such cases.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

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

Harris, a state prisoner who represented himself with advisory counsel, had his motion to suppress and his Penal Code section 995 motion denied, then pled guilty to assault by a state prisoner (§ 4501) and admitted one strike, and the trial court imposed the middle term of four years doubled to eight years consecutive to his existing sentence and denied a certificate of probable cause. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief listing four possible issues, Harris filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no reasonably arguable issue, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Grant of Harris's request to represent himself with advisory counsel (adequacy of Faretta waiver and advisements) “(1) "Did appellant knowingly and voluntarily waive his right to counsel on March 22, 2011?"”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion gives no detail about the Faretta colloquy; it simply reports that independent Wende/Anders review disclosed no arguable issue. Without the record I cannot identify an error, and Wende review does not require the court to explain each potential issue, so the conclusion is defensible but unverifiable.
Denial of Harris's motion to suppress evidence “After full briefing and a hearing, the trial court denied Harris's motion.”	unclear	correct	agree with court A suppression ruling survives a guilty plea under section 1538.5, subdivision (m), so it was properly within Wende review. The opinion notes the motion did not even identify the evidence to be suppressed, which supports the conclusion that no arguable issue existed, though the court does not explain its reasoning.
Imposition of a $240 restitution fine under section 1202.4 for a 2009 offense “(4) "Does the imposition upon appellant of a $240.00 restitution fine constitute an improper ex post facto action by the trial court”	unclear	correct	agree with court At the time of the 2009 offense the statutory range for the restitution fine was $200 to $10,000, so a $240 fine was within the trial court's discretion under the law in effect at the time of the crime regardless of the later increase in the statutory minimum; the court's conclusion that this presents no arguable ex post facto issue is sound, although the opinion does not say so.
Judgment of conviction on guilty plea and eight-year sentence (middle term doubled for strike, consecutive) “A review of the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issues listed pursuant to Anders, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The sentence matches the negotiated disposition and the statutory scheme (four-year middle term under § 4501 doubled under the Three Strikes law). The certificate of probable cause was denied, so plea-validity challenges were not cognizable in any event; nothing in the opinion suggests sentencing error.

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 without merit may file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, and the court then conducts its own examination.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the standard Wende procedure, describes the procedural history and the Anders issues counsel identified, and states that independent review found no arguable issue; nothing in it suggests a misreading of law. It does not, however, explain why any listed issue fails (for example, that the $240 fine was within the range applicable in 2009, or that absent a certificate of probable cause plea-related issues are not cognizable), and it contains a minor internal inconsistency about the offense date (2009 versus 2010).

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 9/13/13 P. v. Harris 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, D062631

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. JCF25248)

MICHAEL HARRIS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Imperial County, William D.

Lehman, Judge. Affirmed.

Gerald J. Miller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. I.

INTRODUCTION

Michael Harris pled guilty to one count of assault by a state prisoner (Pen. Code, § 4501)1 and admitted one prior conviction for a serious or violent felony. The trial court sentenced Harris to the middle term of four years, doubled to eight years for the prior conviction. We affirm the judgment.

II.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Harris was charged by indictment with one count of assault by a life prisoner (§ 4500), one count of assault by a state prisoner (§ 4501), and one count of battery on a nonconfined person by a prisoner (§ 4501.5). As to each count, the indictment also alleged that Harris committed the offense while confined in a state prison (§ 1170.1, subd. (c)) and that Harris had suffered a total of five prior serious or violent felony convictions (§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d) and § 667, subds. (b)-(i)).

According to the charging document, the charges against Harris arose out of a November 21, 2009 incident in which Harris, while incarcerated in state prison, attacked a correctional officer who was attempting to move Harris to a different unit. Harris began arguing with the officer, and the officer sprayed Harris with pepper spray and ordered him to get down on the floor. Harris began striking the officer in the face and 1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. 2 head with his fist, causing the officer to fall to the floor. Harris kicked the officer in the face and continued beating the officer until he was subdued by other officers.

On March 22, 2011, the trial court granted Harris's request that he be permitted to represent himself with the assistance of advisory counsel. Approximately a month later, on April 27, Harris filed a motion to suppress evidence. 2 After full briefing and a hearing, the trial court denied Harris's motion.

On October 14, 2011, Harris filed a motion to set aside the indictment, pursuant to section 995. After full briefing and a hearing, the trial court denied the motion to set aside the indictment. The trial court also denied Harris's motion to compel the prosecutor to elect the charge on which the prosecution intended to proceed.

As part of a negotiated plea agreement, on July 23, 2012, Harris withdrew his not guilty pleas with respect to the count alleging assault by a state prisoner (§ 4501) and admitted having suffered one prior serious or violent felony conviction. In return, the prosecutor dismissed the remaining counts and prior conviction allegations. The trial court sentenced Harris to the middle term of four years, doubled to eight years as a result of the strike conviction, and set the term to run consecutively to the sentence that Harris was already serving.

Harris filed a notice of appeal, and requested a certificate of probable cause. The court denied Harris's request for a certificate of probable cause.

2 In his motion to suppress, Harris does not identify the specific evidence that he was seeking to suppress. 3 Harris's appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We invited Harris to file a brief on his own behalf, but he has not responded.

III.

DISCUSSION

Harris's counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to review the record for error, as mandated by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel lists the following as possible, but not arguable, issues:

(1) "Did appellant knowingly and voluntarily waive his right to counsel on March 22, 2011?"

(2) "Did the trial court properly advise appellant of the potential adverse consequences of this request to represent himself in this matter?"

(3) "Did the trial court properly deny appellant's motion to suppress evidence?"

(4) "Does the imposition upon appellant of a $240.00 restitution fine constitute an improper ex post facto action by the trial court in light of the fact that appellant's crime was committed in 2010, well before the revisions to Penal Code section 1202.4?"

A review of the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issues listed pursuant to Anders, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Harris has been competently represented by counsel in this appeal.

4 IV.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

AARON, J.

WE CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

McDONALD, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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