People v. Galaviz CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCS328095
- Trial judge
- Michael J. Popkins
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Buchanan (author), Richard D. Huffman, Sr., O'Rourke
Analysis
The trial court accepted a guilty plea from Michael Galaviz for failure to register as a sex offender and sentenced him to two years in prison. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review under People v. Wende found no arguable issues on appeal.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Affirmance of judgment following Wende/Anders review“Based on our review, we conclude there are no arguable issues that would result in a modification or reversal of the judgment.” | de novo | not reached | agree with court The court applied the standard Wende review, examining the record for any arguable issues. Since the brief raised no issues and the court found none independently, the judgment was affirmed. This is the standard procedure for such appeals. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Establishes the procedure for appointed appellate counsel to file a brief raising no issues and requesting 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 none are found, to ensure effective assistance of counsel.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for cases where no issues are raised by counsel. The court explicitly states it conducted an independent review and found no arguable issues, which is the required standard for affirmance in this context.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court, after finding Galaviz incompetent, committing him to a state hospital with involuntary medication, and later restoring him to competency, accepted his guilty plea to failure to register as a sex offender (Pen. Code, § 290.018, subd. (b)) and sentenced him to the middle term of two years. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief identifying only a possible issue regarding mental health diversion under section 1001.36; the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Entry of judgment on guilty plea to failure to register as a sex offender and imposition of two-year middle term (reviewed under Wende/Anders independent review)“We have independently reviewed the record and find no arguable issues that would result in a modification or reversal of the judgment. Accordingly, we affirm.” | unclear | correct | agree with court This is a standard Wende/Anders affirmance. The opinion recites that the court advised Galaviz of his constitutional and statutory rights, accepted his waivers, and accepted his plea after competency had been restored following a section 1370 commitment. The court gave Galaviz an opportunity to file a supplemental brief, which he did not do, and the opinion sets out the facts and procedural history as required for Wende opinions. Nothing in the opinion suggests any defect in the plea or sentence, and the middle term is lawful. On this record the affirmance is supported by Wende. |
Trial court's failure to investigate or order mental health diversion under Penal Code section 1001.36 (possible issue identified by appellate counsel)“his counsel identified the possible issue of whether the trial court erred by not investigating mental health diversion for Galaviz pursuant to section 1001.36.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The court considered the identified issue and concluded it presented no arguable issue, but gave no reasoning. Nothing in the opinion indicates a diversion motion was ever made in the trial court, and Galaviz pleaded guilty after being restored to competency; a trial court generally has no sua sponte duty to initiate section 1001.36 proceedings, and a guilty plea without a certificate of probable cause limits challenges to pre-plea rulings. The result is defensible, but because the opinion provides no analysis of the issue, I cannot fully verify it from the opinion alone. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel files a brief raising no arguable issues, the Court of Appeal must independently review the entire record for arguable issues and may affirm if none are found.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous may so advise the court and request permission to withdraw, accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, with the court then conducting its own examination of the record.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the standard Wende/Anders procedure: it recites the facts and procedural history, identifies the possible issue flagged by counsel, notes the defendant was invited to but did not file a supplemental brief, and affirms after independent review. It offers no explanation of why the section 1001.36 diversion issue is not arguable, which is typical of Wende opinions but leaves a gap for a reader seeking to verify the conclusion.
Opinion
Filed 5/9/25 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, D084382
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCS328095)
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 for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Michael Galaviz appeals from a judgment entered after he pleaded guilty to one count of failure to register as a sex offender (Pen. Code,1 § 290.018, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced Galaviz to two years in 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. prison. On appeal, Galaviz’s appointed counsel filed an opening brief raising no arguable issues and requesting that we independently review the record for potential issues under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders). We have independently reviewed the record and find no arguable issues that would result in a modification or reversal of the judgment. Accordingly, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In September 2023, a felony complaint was filed against Galaviz, charging him with one count of failure to register as a sex offender (§ 290.018, subd. (b)). Following an initial mental health examination of Galaviz, a state physician opined that Galaviz had the ability to understand the nature of the proceedings against him and to cooperate with his counsel in a rational manner in his own defense. However, following a second mental health examination one month later, the same physician opined that Galaviz did not adequately understand the nature of the proceedings against him and could not assist his counsel in a rational manner in his defense. The physician also opined that Galaviz was suffering from a severe mental disorder which required medical treatment with antipsychotic medications pursuant to section 1370. On January 10, 2024, the trial court conducted a hearing on Galaviz’s mental capacity and found that he was mentally incompetent. The court further found that Galaviz lacked the capacity to make a decision regarding antipsychotic medication, his mental disorder required medical treatment with antipsychotic medication and, if his mental disorder was not treated with antipsychotic medication, it was possible that serious harm to his physical or mental health would result. The court then ordered Galaviz 2 committed to a state hospital for care and treatment and authorized the involuntary administration of antipsychotic medications. On March 21, the court conducted another hearing on Galaviz’s mental competency and received in evidence a report of a physician. The court found that Galaviz was mentally competent to stand trial, reinstated criminal proceedings, and ordered him returned to local custody. On March 29, Galaviz signed a plea agreement pursuant to which he pleaded guilty to the charge of failure to register as a sex offender (§ 290.018, subd. (b)). At a hearing on that date, the court advised Galaviz regarding his constitutional and statutory rights, accepted his waivers of those rights, and then accepted his guilty plea. The court subsequently sentenced Galaviz to the middle term of two years for his conviction of failure to register as a sex offender. Galaviz appealed the judgment. On appeal, Galaviz’s appointed counsel filed a brief under Wende and Anders, setting forth the facts of the case and requesting that we independently review the entire record, but raising no arguable issues. To assist us in our review, his counsel identified the possible issue of whether the trial court erred by not investigating mental health diversion for Galaviz pursuant to section 1001.36. We issued an order granting Galaviz an opportunity to file his own supplemental brief, but he has not done so. DISCUSSION We have considered the possible issue identified by Galaviz’s appellate counsel and conducted an independent review of the entire record for other arguable issues under Wende and Anders. Based on our review, we conclude there are no arguable issues that would result in a modification or reversal of the judgment. Galaviz is competently represented in this appeal.
3 Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441– 442.) DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.
BUCHANAN, J.
WE CONCUR:
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
O’ROURKE, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12