People v. Delafuente CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D084666 · 2025-06-13 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Bernardino County · No. FWV22000782
Trial judge: Elia V. Pirozzi (retired judge)
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Judith D. McConnell (author), Joan K. Irion, Truc T. Do

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T03:46Z · confidence high

The trial court accepted a no contest plea to assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury, placed the defendant on probation, and later revoked probation to impose a two-year prison sentence. The appellate court affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record found no reasonably arguable issues, while ordering the abstract of judgment corrected to reflect the proper conviction.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Affirmance of the judgment following a Wende review “We have reviewed the entire record in accordance with Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and have not found any reasonably arguable appellate issues.”	de novo	not reached	agree with court The court applied the standard Wende review, finding no reasonably arguable issues in the record. The reasoning is consistent with established California appellate procedure for appointed counsel appeals where no issues are raised.
Correction of the abstract of judgment “The abstract of judgment erroneously lists a conviction for a violation of section 243, subdivision (d) instead of section 245, subdivision (a)(4). We order the abstract of judgment corrected accordingly.”	de novo	not reached	agree with court The court identified a clerical error in the abstract of judgment where the wrong statute was listed. It ordered the correction to ensure the record accurately reflects the conviction for which the defendant pled.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to review the record for error and file a brief if no issues are found, or the court must conduct an independent review.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly applies the Wende procedure for reviewing a record where no issues were raised by counsel. It accurately identifies and corrects a clerical error in the abstract of judgment.

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

The trial court accepted Delafuente's no contest plea to assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)), placed him on formal probation, and after he admitted repeated probation violations, revoked probation and sentenced him to the low term of two years. On appeal, counsel filed a Wende brief, the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, affirmed the judgment, and directed correction of the abstract of judgment, which misidentified the conviction as a violation of section 243, subdivision (d).

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Revocation of probation and imposition of the low term of two years following defendant's admitted probation violations (the judgment reviewed under Wende) “We have reviewed the entire record in accordance with Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and have not found any reasonably arguable appellate issues.”	unclear	correct	agree with court This is an appeal of right from a judgment imposing sentence after probation revocation, so independent Wende review was the proper procedure. The opinion recites that defendant admitted the violations and received the low term for a section 245(a)(4) conviction, which is within the statutory range; nothing in the opinion suggests any arguable error, though the opinion gives almost no detail about the violations or sentencing proceedings.
Preparation of the abstract of judgment listing a conviction under section 243, subdivision (d) rather than section 245, subdivision (a)(4) “The abstract of judgment erroneously lists a conviction for a violation of section 243, subdivision (d) instead of section 245, subdivision (a)(4). We order the abstract of judgment corrected accordingly.”	de novo	error (other)	agree with court The abstract must reflect the oral pronouncement of judgment; the plea was to an amended count under section 245(a)(4), so listing section 243(d) is a clerical error that an appellate court may order corrected at any time. The correction is proper, though the court cited no authority for its power to do so.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed counsel finds no arguable issues, the Court of Appeal must independently review the entire record for arguable appellate issues before affirming.
missed: People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181 — An abstract of judgment that does not accurately reflect the oral pronouncement of judgment is a clerical error that appellate courts may order corrected on their own motion.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court followed the required Wende procedure, offered the defendant the chance to file his own brief, independently reviewed the record, and caught and corrected a genuine clerical error in the abstract. It did not cite authority for its power to correct the abstract or describe the probation violations or sentencing in any detail, but the result is defensible on the opinion's own terms.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

Filed 6/13/25 P. v. Delafuente 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, D084666

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. FWV22000782)

RODRIGO JESUS DELAFUENTE,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, Elia V. Pirozzi, Judge. (Retired Judge of the San Bernardino Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed. Stephanie L. Gunther, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In March 2022, the People charged Rodrigo Jesus Delafuente with a violation of Penal Code1 section 243, subdivision (d), felonious assault 1 Further statutory references are to the Penal Code. resulting in serious bodily injury, alleging seven possible special circumstances. The following month, Delafuente pled no contest to an amended count of section 245, subdivision (a)(4), assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury.2 In accordance with his plea, the court placed Delafuente on formal probation and ordered him to serve 112 days in jail, crediting him with 56 days; the balance of the complaint was dismissed. Delafuente admitted repeatedly violating the terms of his probation, resulting in its revocation and a sentence to the low term of two years. Delafuente appeals. We affirm the judgment and remand the case for correction of the abstract of judgment. STATEMENT OF FACTS On March 3, 2022, Delafuente confronted a gas station clerk. Delafuente walked behind the counter before pushing and punching the clerk. The clerk attempted to get away from Delafuente but slipped and fell to the ground. Delafuente proceeded to kick and punch the clerk while he was on the ground; he stopped his assault when witnesses intervened. DISCUSSION Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and has not raised any specific issues. Counsel asks this court to review the record independently for error as required by Wende. We offered Delafuente the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not done so.

2 The abstract of judgment erroneously lists a conviction for a violation of section 243, subdivision (d) instead of section 245, subdivision (a)(4). We order the abstract of judgment corrected accordingly. 2 We have reviewed the entire record in accordance with Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and have not found any reasonably arguable appellate issues. Competent counsel has represented Delafuente on this appeal. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to amend the abstract of judgment to correctly reflect Delafuente’s conviction and to forward a certified copy of the amended abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

McCONNELL, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

IRION, J.

DO, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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