People v. Abdi CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D083994 · 2025-06-26 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD296153
Trial judge: Dwayne K. Moring
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Joan K. Irion (author), Laurence D. Rubin, Buchanan

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T03:45Z · confidence low

The trial court affirmed a guilty plea and sentenced the defendant to probation after finding her competent to stand trial and denying her motions to substitute counsel. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, finding no arguable issues for reversal after an independent review of the record pursuant to Wende and Anders.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of Marsden motions to substitute appointed counsel “The trial court’s rejection of Abdi’s Marsden motions.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The court listed the issue as one considered by appellate counsel but did not provide specific analysis or reasoning for why it was not arguable, stating only that no arguable issues were found after independent review.
Calculation and imposition of fines and fees “The proper calculation and imposition of fines and fees.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The court listed this as a potential issue considered by counsel but did not provide specific analysis or reasoning for why it was not arguable, stating only that no arguable issues were found after independent review.
Findings of incompetence and competence “Whether the findings of incompetence and competence were supported by the record.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The court listed this as a potential issue considered by counsel but did not provide specific analysis or reasoning for why it was not arguable, stating only that no arguable issues were found after independent review.

Authorities

relied: People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 — Standard for substituting appointed counsel.
relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Appellate counsel's duty to review the record for error when no arguable issues are identified.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appellate counsel's duty to review the record for error when no arguable issues are identified.
relied: People v. Johnson (2009) 47 Cal.4th 668 — Without a certificate of probable cause, a defendant cannot contest the validity of a plea; only issues relating to the validity of a denial of a motion to suppress or to matters arising after the plea was entered are cognizable on appeal.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound in its application of Wende and Anders, correctly identifying the limited scope of review due to the lack of a certificate of probable cause. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' opinion because it lists three specific potential issues identified by counsel but provides no substantive reasoning or analysis for why each was deemed non-arguable, relying solely on the blanket statement that no arguable issues were found.

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 denied two Marsden motions, conducted section 1368 competency proceedings (first finding Abdi competent, then incompetent and committing her, then competent again after a state hospital certification), accepted her guilty plea to first degree burglary of an inhabited dwelling, and sentenced her per the plea agreement to two years' probation and 365 days with 640 days of credit plus $411 in fines and assessments. On appeal, counsel filed a Wende brief, Abdi filed nothing and obtained no certificate of probable cause, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of Abdi's two pre-plea Marsden motions to substitute appointed counsel “Abdi requested a hearing pursuant to Marsden to substitute appointed counsel. The court heard and denied the motion.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The court did not separately analyze the Marsden denials; it identified them as a possible issue flagged by counsel and, after independent Wende review, found no arguable issue. Because the denials preceded the guilty plea and Abdi had no certificate of probable cause under section 1237.5, the claim would not be cognizable in any event, so the result is defensible even without a merits discussion.
Trial court's competency findings under section 1368 (finding Abdi competent, then incompetent with commitment and involuntary medication, then competent again) “The court found Abdi competent and reinstated criminal proceedings.”	unclear	correct	agree with court Each competency finding rested on stipulated expert reports (Drs. Rice, Brunetto, Carpio, and Alvarez), and the court ordered a third evaluation when Abdi disputed Dr. Brunetto's report. The opinion does not discuss the findings on the merits but found no arguable issue on independent review; a challenge to pre-plea competency determinations also goes to the plea's validity and requires a certificate of probable cause, as People v. Johnson holds, which Abdi lacked.
Imposition of the stipulated sentence, custody credits, and fines and assessments “We have not discovered any reasonable basis to challenge the stipulated sentence or any other arguable issues for reversal on appeal.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The sentence of two years' probation and 365 days matched the plea agreement; credits of 320 actual and 320 conduct days under section 4019 are internally consistent; the fines and assessments total $411 and nothing in the opinion suggests an unauthorized component. Post-plea sentencing matters are cognizable without a certificate, and the court reviewed them under Wende and found nothing arguable.
Acceptance of the guilty plea / validity of the plea “Without a certificate of probable cause, she cannot contest the validity of her plea; the only issues cognizable on appeal are issues relating to the validity of a denial of a motion to suppress or to matters arising after the plea was entered.”	de novo	not reached	agree with court Abdi checked the box to challenge plea validity but gave no grounds and no certificate issued; section 1237.5 and rule 8.304(b) bar review of plea-validity claims without a certificate. The court correctly applied this jurisdictional limit and cited the controlling Supreme Court authority.

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.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal frivolous must so advise the court and identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
relied: People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 — A defendant seeking substitution of appointed counsel must be permitted to state the reasons for the request and the court must inquire into them.
relied: People v. Johnson (2009) 47 Cal.4th 668 — A defendant who pleads guilty must obtain a certificate of probable cause under section 1237.5 to raise on appeal claims going to the validity of the plea, including pre-plea competency-related claims; absent a certificate only suppression rulings and post-plea matters are cognizable.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion follows the Wende/Anders procedure, sets out the procedural history and the issues counsel flagged, correctly notes the certificate-of-probable-cause bar on plea-validity claims with the right authority, and affirms after independent review. It does not expressly explain that the Marsden and competency issues are pre-plea matters barred by the certificate requirement, but a Wende opinion need not discuss each potential issue and the result is correct.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

Filed 6/26/25 P. v. Abdi 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, D083994

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD296153)

MUNA ABDI,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Dwayne K. Moring, Judge. Affirmed. Annie Fraser, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Muna Abdi appeals a judgment following a guilty plea. Prior to Abdi’s plea, she made two unsuccessful motions pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden) to substitute appointed counsel, and the trial court conducted competency proceedings pursuant to Penal Code section 1368.1 After the court found her competent, Abdi pleaded guilty to the offense. The court sentenced Abdi to probation in accordance with the plea agreement. Appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating counsel has not identified any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Abdi the opportunity to file her own brief on appeal, but she has not done so. We independently reviewed the record in this case consistent with our obligations under Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders). Finding no arguable issues, we affirm the judgment. STATEMENT OF FACTS In September 2022, Abdi was charged with one count of first degree burglary in violation of section 459, with the special allegation of burglary of an inhabited building pursuant to section 460 subdivision (a). The trial court arraigned Abdi on the charge and appointed counsel. Abdi requested a hearing pursuant to Marsden to substitute appointed counsel. The court heard and denied the motion. In April 2023, the court suspended proceedings under section 1368 and ordered a forensic evaluation of Abdi. Dr. Valerie Rice evaluated Abdi and prepared a report, which the parties stipulated to receive into evidence. The court found Abdi competent to stand trial and reinstated criminal proceedings. At the readiness conference in July 2023, Abdi made a second Marsden motion. After the court heard and denied the motion, Abdi’s counsel declared 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 a doubt as to Abdi’s competency. The court again suspended criminal proceedings under section 1368 and ordered another forensic evaluation of Abdi. Dr. Benedetto Brunetto evaluated Abdi and generated a report. When Abdi opposed the findings of Dr. Brunetto, the court ordered Abdi to be reevaluated by another doctor. Dr. Alma Carpio conducted an evaluation and generated a report. At a competency hearing in October 2023, the parties stipulated to receive into evidence the reports of Drs. Brunetto and Carpio. The court found Abdi not competent to stand trial and ordered an evaluation as to Abdi’s placement. After receiving that evaluation, the court committed Abdi to a closed, locked forensic setting for a maximum of two years and authorized the involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication. Two months later, Dr. William F. Alvarez of Metropolitan State Hospital submitted a certification of Abdi’s mental competency to the court. At the subsequent competency hearing, the parties stipulated to receive Dr. Alvarez’s report into evidence. The court found Abdi competent and reinstated criminal proceedings. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Abdi pleaded guilty to the offense and admitted the special allegation. As a factual basis, Abdi admitted she “unlawfully entered an inhabited dwelling with the intent to commit a theft.” Defense counsel agreed the plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent and there was a factual basis, but did not concur in Abdi’s plea of guilty. In accordance with the parties’ plea agreement, the court sentenced Abdi to two years of probation and 365 days in custody with credit for time served. The court awarded custody credits of 320 actual days and 320 conduct credits (§ 4019) for a total credit of 640 days. The court ordered Abdi to pay fines and assessments totaling $411.

3 Abdi appealed based on the sentence. Although Abdi also checked a box on the notice of appeal indicating she intended to challenge the validity of the plea, she supplied no grounds in support of a request for a certificate of probable cause. No certificate was issued. DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks this court to review the record for error. To assist the court in its review and in compliance with Anders, counsel identified the following possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: 1. The trial court’s rejection of Abdi’s Marsden motions. 2. The proper calculation and imposition of fines and fees. 3. Whether the findings of incompetence and competence were supported by the record. Abdi did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. Without a certificate of probable cause, she cannot contest the validity of her plea; the only issues cognizable on appeal are issues relating to the validity of a denial of a motion to suppress or to matters arising after the plea was entered. (§ 1237.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(3); see generally, People v. Johnson (2009) 47 Cal.4th 668, 676–681.) We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any reasonable basis to challenge the stipulated sentence or any other arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Abdi on this appeal.

4 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

IRION, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

BUCHANAN, J.

RUBIN, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Johnson S166894 · 2009-11-23
People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12
People v. Marsden Crim. 14119 · 1970-02-26