People v. Galaviz CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD301897
- Trial judge
- Michael J. Popkins
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Truc T. Do (author), Judith D. McConnell, Joan K. Irion
Analysis
The trial court accepted a guilty plea from Michael Galaviz for manufacturing a weapon while confined and sentenced him to 16 months, dismissing prior allegations. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
Judgment of conviction and sentence following a guilty plea“Based on our independent review of the record, we find no reasonably arguable appellate issues and affirm the judgment.” | de novo | correct | agree with court The court applied the standard Wende review, which requires an independent examination of the record to determine if there are any reasonably arguable issues. The court found none, which is the correct procedural outcome when no specific errors are identified in the record or by the appellant. |
Denial of Faretta/Lopez motion to proceed pro se“The trial court denied the motion without prejudice and appointed the Office of the Public Defender.” | abuse of discretion | correct | agree with court The opinion notes the denial but does not identify it as an issue on appeal. The Wende review found no arguable issues, implying the denial was not reversible error. The court's silence on this specific ruling, combined with the overall affirmation, suggests the ruling was within the trial court's discretion. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appellate counsel to file a brief identifying issues and the court to independently review the record for error when no issues are raised.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to withdraw from a case where no arguable issues exist, requiring a brief and court review.
- relied: Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 — Establishes the right to self-representation in criminal proceedings.
- relied: People v. Lopez (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 568 — California case interpreting the right to self-representation and the trial court's discretion in denying such motions.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is a standard Wende/Anders memorandum. It correctly identifies the procedural posture, summarizes the facts, and states the result of the independent review. The reasoning is sufficient for this type of disposition as it relies on the established Wende standard.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe San Diego Superior Court accepted Galaviz's guilty plea to manufacturing a weapon while confined in a penal institution (Pen. Code, § 4502, subd. (b)), after earlier Faretta and competency proceedings, and sentenced him to the low term of 16 months, dismissing the strike and probation-denial priors under section 1385, concurrent with a stipulated two-year term in another case. On appeal, counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief, Galaviz filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal conducted an independent review of the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial without prejudice of Galaviz's Faretta/Lopez request to represent himself and appointment of the Public Defender“On January 12, Galaviz filed a Faretta/Lopez2 waiver and requested he proceed as a self-represented litigant. The trial court denied the motion without prejudice and appointed the Office of the Public Defender.” | unclear | correct | unsure The opinion reviews this only as part of its Wende independent review and gives no analysis. Given that competency proceedings were suspended five days later and Galaviz was found incompetent, a without-prejudice denial of self-representation is plausibly justified, but the opinion does not state the trial court's reasons, so I cannot independently confirm the ruling was correct beyond the court's conclusion that no arguable issue exists. |
Section 1368 finding of mental incompetence, commitment to Patton State Hospital, and later finding of restoration to competency with reinstatement of criminal proceedings“On February 29, the court received Dr. Matthew Carroll’s report and found Galaviz not mentally competent to stand trial and committed him to Patton State Hospital for the maximum term of two years.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The procedural sequence described (suspension of proceedings, expert report, incompetency finding and commitment under sections 1370 and 1372, restoration finding, reinstatement) tracks the statutory scheme, and the opinion finds nothing arguable. Without the contents of the report or the restoration certification, the Wende conclusion appears reasonable but is not independently verifiable. |
Acceptance of guilty plea to section 4502, subdivision (b), admission of the strike prior, and entry of judgment“He pled guilty to violating section 4502, subdivision (b), and admitted the strike prior. His appointed counsel concurred in the guilty plea and waiver of constitutional rights.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The opinion notes counsel concurred in the plea and waiver of rights, and the plea was entered after Galaviz was found restored to competency. The court's independent review found no arguable defect in the plea. The opinion does not mention whether a certificate of probable cause under section 1237.5 was obtained, which would limit any challenge to the plea's validity in any event, so affirmance is consistent with the record described. |
Sentence to the low term of 16 months with dismissal of the strike prior and probation-denial priors under section 1385, concurrent with the stipulated two-year sentence in case No. SCS328095“The trial court sentenced him to the low term of 16 months and dismissed the strike prior and probation denial priors pursuant to section 1385.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The sentence is the most lenient available: low term, strike dismissed, concurrent to another case. No sentencing error adverse to the defendant is apparent from the opinion's description, so the Wende conclusion is well supported. |
Counsel-identified potential issue: whether trial counsel was ineffective for not investigating mental health diversion under section 1001.36““Whether the trial counsel erred in not investigating Mental Health Diversion for Mr. Galaviz pursuant to section 1001.36.” We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.” | unclear | correct | agree with court A claim that counsel failed to investigate diversion generally depends on facts outside the appellate record (counsel's reasons, Galaviz's eligibility and suitability, whether a diversion request would have been granted), and such claims are ordinarily not cognizable on direct appeal; they are better raised by habeas petition. The court's conclusion that the issue is not arguable on this record is defensible, though the opinion gives no analysis. |
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 to determine whether any arguable issue exists before affirming.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal frivolous may so advise the court and request 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.
- relied: Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 — A criminal defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to self-representation upon a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of counsel.
- relied: People v. Lopez (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 568 — Sets out the advisements a trial court should give to ensure a defendant's waiver of counsel and election of self-representation is knowing and intelligent.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court followed the Wende/Anders procedure: it notified the defendant of his right to file a supplemental brief, recited the procedural history, identified the issue flagged by counsel, and stated that it independently reviewed the entire record and found no arguable issues. The opinion is sound for its limited purpose, though as a memorandum opinion it offers no analysis of the section 1001.36 diversion question or of the earlier Faretta denial, leaving the reader to accept the court's conclusion without stated reasoning.
Opinion
Filed 5/7/25 P. v. Galaviz 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, D084159
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD301897) MICHAEL GALAVIZ, Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Michael J. Popkins, Judge. Affirmed. Matthew Johnson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION Michael Galaviz appeals from a judgment of conviction and sentence following a guilty plea. 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 Galaviz 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. In a felony complaint filed January 8, 2024 (all further dates are to 2024), the People charged Galaviz with one count of unlawfully manufacturing a weapon while confined in a penal institution (Pen. Code,1 § 4502, subd. (b)) and alleged he suffered 11 probation denial priors (§ 1203, subd. (e)(4)) between 1996 and 2021 and a strike prior (§§ 667, subd. (b)–(i), 1170.12, & 668).
On January 12, Galaviz filed a Faretta/Lopez2 waiver and requested he proceed as a self-represented litigant. The trial court denied the motion without prejudice and appointed the Office of the Public Defender. At the arraignment on January 17, the trial court suspended proceedings pending a mental competency examination pursuant to section 1368. On February 29, the court received Dr. Matthew Carroll’s report and found Galaviz not mentally competent to stand trial and committed him to Patton State Hospital for the maximum term of two years. A judgment of mental incompetency and order for commitment was entered. (§§ 1370, 1372, subd. (a)(2).) On March 21, the court found Galaviz restored to mental competency and reinstated criminal proceedings. He was arraigned on March 26 and entered a plea of not guilty and denial of all allegations. On April 29, Galaviz entered a change of plea. He pled guilty to violating section 4502, subdivision (b), and admitted the strike prior. His appointed counsel concurred in the guilty plea and waiver of constitutional rights. The trial court sentenced him to the low term of 16 months and dismissed the strike prior and probation denial priors pursuant to 1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2 Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 and People v. Lopez (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 568. 2 section 1385. The sentence was run concurrent to a stipulated two-year sentence in case No. SCS328095, in which Galaviz pled guilty to failing to register as a sex offender (§ 290.018, subd. (b).) Galaviz’s appellate counsel has 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, urging no grounds for reversal of the judgment, and asking this court to independently review the record for error. Counsel identifies the following issue to assist the court in its review: “Whether the trial counsel erred in not investigating Mental Health Diversion for Mr. Galaviz pursuant to section 1001.36.” We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Galaviz on this appeal. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.
DO, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
IRION, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12
- People v. Lopez Crim. 9186 · 1977-07-08