People v. Meredith CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCN426631
- Trial judge
- Sim Von Kalinowski
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), O'Rourke, William S. Dato
Analysis
The trial court accepted a guilty plea for attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon, struck the deadly weapon enhancement, and imposed a 12-year sentence. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record pursuant to a Wende brief, finding no arguable issues for reversal.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Sentence imposed (12 years) and striking of the deadly weapon enhancement“We have reviewed the record for error as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.” | abuse of discretion | not reached | agree with court The court identified the sentencing discretion as a potential issue but concluded after independent review that no arguable issues for reversal existed, effectively affirming the trial court's exercise of discretion without detailed analysis. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appellate counsel to file a brief identifying arguable issues and the court to independently review the record when counsel finds none.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires independent review of the record by the appellate court when appointed counsel files a no-merit brief.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for reviewing a no-merit brief in a criminal appeal. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' opinion because it fails to provide any substantive legal analysis or reasoning for why the identified sentencing issue was not arguable, relying solely on the conclusion of the independent review.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court accepted David Meredith's guilty plea to attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon with admitted great bodily injury and deadly weapon enhancements, struck the punishment for the weapon enhancement, and imposed a total term of 12 years in prison. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief identifying one possible issue (sentencing on multiple enhancements), Meredith 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
Imposition of a 12-year prison sentence for the two counts and the great bodily injury enhancement, with the punishment for the deadly weapon enhancement (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)) stricken, in a case where sentencing was left to the trial judge“Whether the court abused its discretion in sentencing Meredith on multiple enhancements in a single case.” | abuse of discretion | correct | agree with court The only potential issue counsel identified was the imposition of multiple enhancements in a single case, which is reviewed for abuse of discretion. The opinion states the court struck the punishment for the weapon enhancement and imposed only the great bodily injury enhancement, which is consistent with the limits on multiple enhancements and shows the trial court exercised its discretion favorably to the defendant. The opinion gives almost no detail on the sentence components, so the conclusion cannot be fully verified from the text, but nothing in the recited record suggests error. |
Acceptance of the guilty plea to attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon and the admissions of the great bodily injury and deadly weapon enhancements“I did unlawfully with the intent to kill assault another with a knife causing great bodily injury. I did assault another unlawfully with a knife or deadly weapon, causing great bodily injury.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The appellate court conducted an independent Wende/Anders review of the whole record and found no arguable issue, which necessarily encompasses the plea proceedings. The quoted factual basis admits each element of the charged offenses and enhancements. The opinion does not discuss plea advisements or a certificate of probable cause, but with no supplemental brief from the defendant and nothing in the record suggesting a defect, the affirmance is defensible. |
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 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal lacks merit may file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, and the court must then review the record itself.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the Wende/Anders procedure, identifies the one possible issue flagged by counsel, notes the defendant declined to file his own brief, and affirms after independent review. It is thin on detail about the sentence and the plea proceedings, so a reader cannot independently confirm the analysis, but nothing in the recited record points to error and the result is defensible.
Opinion
Filed 6/16/25 P. v. Meredith 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, D084278
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN426631)
DAVID MEREDITH,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Sim von Kalinowski, Judge. Affirmed. Jill Kent, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
David Meredith pleaded guilty to attempted murder (Pen. Code,1 §§ 664 & 187, subd. (a)) and assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)) and admitted he inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). Meredith 1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code. also admitted he used a deadly weapon (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). The parties agreed the sentence would be left to the trial judge. The court struck the punishment for the weapon enhancement and imposed a total term of 12 years in prison for the two counts and the great bodily injury enhancement. Meredith 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 Meredith the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. STATEMENT OF FACTS In his change of plea, Meredith stated, “I did unlawfully with the intent to kill assault another with a knife causing great bodily injury. I did assault another unlawfully with a knife or deadly weapon, causing great bodily injury.” 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 potential merits of this appeal: Whether the court abused its discretion in sentencing Meredith on multiple enhancements in a single case. We have 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 Meredith on this appeal.
2 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
O’ROURKE, J.
DATO, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12