People v. Merchant CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D084458 · 2025-05-28 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of Riverside County · No. RIF1406238
Trial judge: Bernard Schwartz
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Judith D. McConnell, Truc T. Do

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T03:47Z · confidence low

The trial court resentenced the defendant to a 27-year determinate term following a remand for a second resentencing hearing. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record pursuant to a Wende brief.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Reimposition of the 27-year determinate sentence “Whether the trial court erred in reimposing the 27-year determinate sentence.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The court identified the issue as a potential merit but concluded after independent review that no arguable issues for reversal existed, effectively affirming the sentence without detailed legal analysis.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to file a brief identifying arguable issues or explaining why none exist, and mandates independent review of the record by the court.
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 independent court review.
relied: People v. Merchant (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 1179 — Prior published opinion affirming the convictions for kidnapping and dissuading a witness, providing the factual background for the current appeal.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for cases where counsel identifies no arguable issues. However, it provides no substantive legal analysis of the sentencing calculation or the specific errors alleged in the prior remand, relying solely on the conclusion of independent review.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:29Z · confidence low

At a second resentencing hearing following remand, the Riverside County Superior Court again imposed a 27-year determinate term for kidnapping (with upper term doubled for a strike), dissuading a witness, and a five-year serious-felony enhancement. On appeal, counsel filed a Wende brief, the defendant 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
Reimposition of the 27-year determinate sentence at the second resentencing hearing “Whether the trial court erred in reimposing the 27-year determinate sentence.”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion conducts a Wende/Anders independent review and states no arguable issue exists, but it does not describe the resentencing record, the reasons for remand in D080509, or the basis for the upper term on kidnapping (e.g., compliance with Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (b) as amended by Senate Bill 567). Without those facts, the result cannot be independently verified from the opinion, though nothing in it indicates 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 error before affirming.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Counsel who cannot identify arguable issues should file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal to assist the court's review.
relied: People v. Merchant (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 1179 — Prior published opinion affirming the convictions for kidnapping and dissuading a witness and setting forth the facts of the offenses.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the Wende/Anders procedure correctly: counsel identified a possible issue, the defendant was offered and declined the chance to file his own brief, and the court states it independently reviewed the record. It is a defensible result, but the opinion gives no account of what occurred at the second resentencing or why the reimposed upper term and enhancements were lawful, leaving the reasoning unverifiable from the opinion itself.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 5/28/25 P. v. Merchant 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, D084458

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. RIF1406238)

JECARR FRANSWA MERCHANT,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Bernard Schwartz, Judge. Affirmed. Jason L. Jones, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. This appeal is from a second resentencing hearing after Jecarr Franswa Merchant was sentenced in 2017. We affirmed the convictions for kidnapping (Pen. Code,1 § 207, subd. (a)) and dissuading a witness (§ 136.1, subd. (c)(1)). (People v. Merchant (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 1179.)

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code. In 2022, the trial court held a resentencing hearing and reimposed the previous sentence. The court sentenced Merchant to a determinate term of 27 years in prison. The court imposed an upper term for simple kidnapping, which was then doubled for a prior strike for a 16-year term. The court imposed a full-strength middle term for dissuading a witness for an additional six-year term. The court added five years for the serious felony prior (§ 667, subd. (a)). Merchant appealed and this court remanded the case for a second resentencing hearing. (People v. Merchant (June 30, 2023, D080509) [nonpub. opn.].) Following a hearing, the court again imposed a 27-year determinate term. Merchant 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 Merchant the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. STATEMENT OF FACTS We set forth a summary of the facts of the offenses in our opinion affirming the convictions. (People v. Merchant, supra, 40 Cal App.5th at pp. 1182–1184.) We will not repeat that summary here. DISCUSSION 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 a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the 2 potential merits of this appeal: Whether the trial court erred in reimposing the 27-year determinate sentence. 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 Merchant on this appeal. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

DO, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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