People v. Singleton CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCN440538
- Trial judge
- Sim Von Kalinowski
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Joan K. Irion (author), O'Rourke, Laurence D. Rubin
Analysis
The trial court accepted Singleton's guilty plea to attempted murder and imposed a stipulated 10-year prison term with enhancements. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, finding no error.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Affirmance of judgment following Wende review“We have reviewed the entire record, as required by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and determined there are no grounds for reversal or modification of the judgment.” | de novo | not reached | unsure The court applied the standard Wende review, finding no error in the record. The opinion is procedurally correct but lacks substantive analysis of the underlying plea or sentencing. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Appellate court must conduct a review of the entire record whenever appointed counsel submits a brief which raises no specific issues.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion correctly follows the Wende procedure for appointed counsel who raises no issues. However, it provides no substantive analysis of the plea agreement or sentencing, making it impossible to verify the correctness of the trial court's actions beyond the court's own assertion.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court accepted Singleton's negotiated guilty plea to attempted murder with a firearm enhancement, having earlier denied his motion for mental health diversion after a mistrial, and imposed the stipulated 10-year prison term plus standard fines and assessments. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief raising no issues, Singleton filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable error, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Acceptance of guilty plea and enhancement admissions as knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, with dismissal of remaining charges and allegations“the court found Singleton knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered into the plea agreement, accepted his guilty plea and admissions, and dismissed the remaining charges and allegations.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The opinion recites that the court reviewed the plea terms with Singleton and counsel and advised him of the constitutional trial rights he was waiving before taking the plea. Nothing in the record described suggests a defect, and independent Wende review found none; the opinion gives no basis to disagree. |
Imposition of the stipulated 10-year sentence (upper term of nine years for attempted murder plus one year for the section 12022, subdivision (a)(1) firearm enhancement, gang enhancement punishment stricken) together with restitution fines and assessments“At the sentencing hearing, the court imposed the stipulated 10-year prison term.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The sentence matched the negotiated disposition, the upper term of nine years is the statutory upper term for attempted murder under section 664, subdivision (a), the one-year firearm term is the term prescribed by section 12022, subdivision (a)(1), and the fines and assessments imposed are the statutory minimums. A stipulated sentence under a plea agreement also generally forecloses challenge to its terms. No error is apparent. |
Denial of motion for mental health diversion under section 1001.36 following mistrial“The court denied the motion for mental health diversion.” | unclear | not reached | unsure The opinion mentions the denial only as procedural history and does not analyze it; counsel raised no issue and Singleton filed no supplemental brief. Because the record described does not disclose the grounds for denial, and a later guilty plea ordinarily limits review of pre-plea rulings, there is no basis in the opinion to assess whether the ruling was correct. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel files a brief raising no specific issues, the appellate court must independently review the entire record for arguable error.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly applies the Wende procedure: it summarizes the facts and procedural history, notes the defendant was invited to and did not file a supplemental brief, states the court reviewed the entire record, and finds no arguable issues. Given a negotiated plea with a stipulated sentence and statutory-minimum fines, affirmance is the expected result and nothing in the recited record suggests an issue the court overlooked.
Opinion
Filed 6/25/25 P. v. Singleton 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, D085303
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN440538)
DAVID PALLERA SINGLETON,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Sim von Kalinowski, Judge. Affirmed. Laura Beth Arnold, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
David Pallera Singleton appeals the judgment sentencing him to prison for 10 years after he pled guilty to attempted murder and admitted a firearm enhancement allegation. His appointed counsel filed a brief in which she raised no claims of error and invited us to review the record independently for error. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) We have done so and found no error requiring reversal or modification of the judgment. We therefore affirm. BACKGROUND Singleton and Wyatt Laney were members of a motorcycle gang. Laney saw a member of a rival gang at a bar and contacted Singleton. Singleton met Laney outside the bar and acted as a lookout as Laney fired his handgun four times into the bar at the rival gang member. Laney missed his target. He and Singleton fled the scene in separate vehicles. The People charged Singleton with conspiracy to commit murder (Pen. Code, §§ 182, subd. (a), 187, subd. (a); subsequent undesignated section references are to this code), attempted murder (§§ 21a, 187, subd. (a)), and shooting at an occupied building (§ 246). They alleged gang and firearm enhancements (§§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C), (4)(B), (5), 12022, subd. (a)(1), 12022.53, subds. (c), (e)(1)) as to all charges, and also alleged Singleton had a prior conviction that qualified as a serious felony for purposes of a five-year enhancement (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)) and a strike under the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12) and served a prior prison term (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(b)(3)). Singleton pled not guilty to all charges and denied all allegations. On the eve of trial, Singleton filed a motion for mental health diversion. (§ 1001.36.) The parties agreed the motion would be heard during trial, and the People later filed opposition to the motion. The jury was unable to reach any verdicts, and the court declared a mistrial. The court denied the motion for mental health diversion. Before a second trial began, the parties reached a plea agreement. Singleton agreed to plead guilty to attempted murder and to admit the attached gang and firearm enhancement allegations and the allegation of 2 service of a prior prison term. In exchange, the People agreed to dismiss the remaining charges and allegations. The parties stipulated to imposition of the upper prison term of nine years for attempted murder (§ 664, subd. (a)) plus a consecutive prison term of one year for the firearm enhancement (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1)) and to striking the punishment for the gang enhancement (§ 1385, subd. (b)(1)). After reviewing the terms of the plea agreement with Singleton and his counsel and ensuring Singleton understood the trial-related constitutional rights he was waiving, the court found Singleton knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered into the plea agreement, accepted his guilty plea and admissions, and dismissed the remaining charges and allegations. At the sentencing hearing, the court imposed the stipulated 10-year prison term. It also imposed a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)(1)), a $300 parole revocation restitution fine (§ 1202.45, subd. (a)), a $40 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)) and a $30 court facilities assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373, subd. (a)(1)). DISCUSSION Singleton’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which she summarized the proceedings, raised no claims of error, and asked us to review the record independently for error. (See Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441 [appellate court must “conduct a review of the entire record whenever appointed counsel submits a brief which raises no specific issues”].) We advised Singleton he could file a supplemental brief, but he did not. We have reviewed the entire record, as required by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and determined there are no grounds for reversal or modification of the judgment. We also have determined Singleton received competent representation on appeal.
3 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.
IRION, J.
WE CONCUR:
O’ROURKE, Acting P. J.
RUBIN, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12