People v. Carper CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCS328846
- Trial judge
- Michael J. Popkins
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Truc T. Do, Michele M. Castillo
Analysis
The trial court accepted a guilty plea to assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury and imposed a three-year probation sentence with 180 days of custody. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, finding no arguable issues for reversal.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Imposition of a three-year term of probation“Whether the trial court erred in imposing a three-year term of probation.” | unclear | not reached | unsure The court identified the issue as a potential ground for appeal but concluded after independent review that no arguable issues for reversal existed, effectively affirming the sentence without detailed analysis. |
Sentencing in accordance with the plea agreement“Was Carper sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement?” | unclear | not reached | unsure The court listed this as a potential issue identified by counsel but did not provide specific reasoning or analysis regarding the compliance of the sentence with the agreement, only stating that no arguable issues were found. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to independently review the record for error when no arguable issues are identified.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires counsel to file a brief identifying any arguable issues and the court to independently review the record in such cases.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it follows the mandatory Wende/Anders protocol for indigent appeals where counsel finds no merit. However, it provides no substantive legal analysis for the specific sentencing issues identified by counsel, relying solely on the conclusion that no arguable errors were found.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual disposition unusual dispositionThe trial court accepted Jason Carper's guilty plea to assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)) with an admission that the victim was a person described in Family Code section 6211, subdivision (a), and placed him on three years' probation with 180 days of custody, fines and fees, and a criminal protective order. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief, Carper filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Whether the sentence imposed conformed to the plea agreement“1. Was Carper sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement?” | de novo | correct | agree with court The court conducted an independent Wende/Anders review of the record and found no arguable issue regarding conformity with the plea bargain. The opinion gives no detail about the plea terms, so the conclusion cannot be checked, but nothing in the opinion suggests a deviation and the Wende procedure was properly followed (counsel appointed, defendant invited to file a brief, record independently reviewed). |
Whether the trial court erred in imposing a three-year term of probation“2. Whether the trial court erred in imposing a three-year term of probation.” | de novo | correct | agree with court Although Penal Code section 1203.1 as amended by Assembly Bill No. 1950 generally caps felony probation at two years, section 1203.1, subdivision (l)(1) exempts offenses that include a specific probation length within their provisions, and section 1203.097 mandates a minimum 36-month probation term where the victim is a person defined in Family Code section 6211. Because Carper admitted the victim was such a person, a three-year term appears lawful. The opinion does not explain this, but under Wende it need not. |
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 lacks merit may so advise the court and identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, to assist the court's independent review.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court followed the required Wende/Anders procedure: counsel identified possible issues, the defendant was invited to file his own brief, and the court independently reviewed the record and found no arguable issues. The opinion is minimal and does not explain why the three-year probation term is lawful under Penal Code sections 1203.1 and 1203.097, but a Wende affirmance need not discuss issues found to lack merit, so the result is defensible on the record described.
Opinion
Filed 5/15/25 P. v. Carper 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, D084273
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCS328846)
JASON CARPER,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Michael J. Popkins, Judge. Affirmed. Siri Shetty, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Jason Carper entered into a plea agreement, under which he pleaded guilty to assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)) and admitted the victim was a person described in Family Code section 6211, subdivision (a). He was granted probation for three years. The sentence included 180-days of custody with credit for one day. The remaining sentence assessed various fines and fees and included issuance of a criminal protective order. Carper filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, indicating counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to independently review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Carper the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. The conviction was from a guilty plea without any evidentiary hearing to establish the facts of the offense. Accordingly, we will omit a statement of facts. As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to independently review the record for error. To assist the court in its review, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel has identified two possible issues which were considered in the process of evaluating the potential merits of this appeal. 1. Was Carper sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement? 2. Whether the trial court erred in imposing a three-year term of probation. We have independently reviewed the record for error as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Carper on this appeal.
2 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
DO, J.
CASTILLO, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12