People v. Morales CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D084780 · 2025-06-26 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCE418775
Trial judge: Daniel G. Lamborn
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Laurence D. Rubin (author), Judith D. McConnell, Michele M. Castillo

Analysis

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

The trial court convicted the defendant of corporal injury to a spouse with a great bodily injury enhancement and sentenced him to seven years in prison. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after conducting an independent review under People v. Wende and finding no arguable issues on appeal.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Affirmance of the judgment following a Wende/Anders review “We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders, and considered the issues identified by Morales’s counsel. We find no arguable issue that would result in a reversal or modification of the judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment.”	unclear	not reached	agree with court The court conducted an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende and Anders, finding no arguable issues to warrant reversal or modification.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires independent review of the record by appellate counsel when no issues are raised in the opening brief.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires independent review of the record by appellate counsel when no issues are raised in the opening brief.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly identifies the Wende/Anders framework and states that an independent review was conducted. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' opinion because it fails to provide any specific reasoning or analysis for why the four potential errors identified by counsel (e.g., failure to dismiss the enhancement, jury instructions) were not arguable, relying solely on a blanket statement that no arguable issues exist.

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

A San Diego County jury convicted Jaro Morales of corporal injury to a spouse with a true finding that he personally inflicted great bodily injury, acquitted him of making a criminal threat, and the trial court imposed a seven-year prison term (midterm of three years plus a midterm four-year great bodily injury enhancement), declining to dismiss the enhancement or select the lower term. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief raising no arguable issues, Morales filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal, after independent review of the record, affirmed the judgment.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of request to dismiss the Penal Code section 12022.7, subdivision (e) great bodily injury enhancement based on danger to public safety “The trial court imposed the midterm of four years for the great bodily injury, declining to dismiss that enhancement based on danger to public safety.”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion merely lists this as a potential issue flagged by counsel and finds no arguable error after Wende review; it recites that the trial court relied on the public-safety exception in section 1385, which is the correct statutory framework, but provides no analysis or record detail permitting independent evaluation.
Selection of the midterm rather than the lower term for corporal injury to a spouse despite evidence of childhood trauma “Despite Morales’s history of childhood trauma, the trial court selected the midterm of three years for corporal injury to a spouse, finding the aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating ones.”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion notes the trial court weighed aggravating factors (an admitted on-probation circumstance) against mitigating ones, which is the inquiry section 1170, subdivision (b)(6) requires when childhood trauma is a contributing factor; the court found no arguable issue but gave no reasoning, so the result cannot be independently verified from the opinion.
Failure to instruct the jury on unanimity and on battery as a lesser included offense “failing to instruct the jury on unanimity and the lesser included offense of battery”	unclear	correct	unsure The appellate court found no arguable instructional error on independent review but did not discuss the facts bearing on whether multiple discrete acts required a unanimity instruction or whether substantial evidence supported a battery-only verdict; the opinion's description of a single continuous attack producing serious injuries is consistent with its conclusion, but the analysis is absent.
Admission of Morales's prior statements and prior domestic abuse evidence, the victim's 911 call, and body-worn camera footage “admitting Morales’s prior statements and domestic abuse, E.V.’s 911 call, and a responding officer’s body-worn camera footage.”	unclear	correct	unsure Evidentiary rulings are ordinarily reviewed for abuse of discretion, and prior domestic violence is admissible under Evidence Code section 1109 subject to section 352, but the opinion states no standard and offers no analysis, so the conclusion cannot be checked beyond the court's assurance of independent review.
Whether trial counsel was ineffective regarding the jury's affirmation of the verdict “Counsel also suggests that we assess whether trial counsel was ineffective regarding the jury’s affirmation of the verdict.”	unclear	correct	unsure The court found no arguable ineffective assistance claim, which is a reasonable conclusion given that such claims generally require a record showing deficient performance and prejudice, but the opinion does not describe what occurred during the verdict affirmation.
Judgment of conviction and seven-year sentence as a whole, reviewed under Wende and Anders “We find no arguable issue that would result in a reversal or modification of the judgment.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The court followed the required Wende/Anders procedure: counsel filed a no-issue brief identifying potential issues, Morales was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief and did not, and the court conducted an independent review of the entire record, which is all that People v. Wende and People v. Kelly require on a first appeal of right.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel files a brief raising no arguable issues, the Court of Appeal must independently review the entire record for arguable issues.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous may so advise the court and request permission to withdraw, accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, and the court must then conduct its own examination.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly applies the Wende/Anders procedure on a first appeal of right, recites the facts and procedural history, identifies the potential issues counsel flagged, notes the defendant's failure to file a supplemental brief, and affirms after independent review, which is all the procedure requires. It contains no substantive analysis of the flagged sentencing, instructional, or evidentiary issues, so its soundness rests on the court's assurance of review rather than on demonstrated reasoning.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 6/26/25 P. v. Morales 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, D084780

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCE418775)

JARO MORALES,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Daniel G. Lamborn, Judge. Affirmed. Laura Vavakin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Jaro Morales appeals from his domestic violence conviction. His appointed appellate counsel filed an opening brief raising no arguable issues pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders); Morales did not file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. Our independent review confirms there are no arguable issues on appeal. We therefore affirm the conviction. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In July of 2023, Morales attacked his wife, E.V., hitting her numerous times and momentarily strangling her with her purse strap. E.V. suffered a broken nose, a concussion, bleeding from her ear, and facial swelling that sealed her left eye. According to E.V., Morales also threatened to kill her and her family. The San Diego District Attorney’s Office charged Morales with corporal injury to a spouse (Pen. Code,1 § 273.5, subd. (a); count 1), alleging that he inflicted great bodily injury during the offense (§ 12022.7, subd. (e)), and making a criminal threat (§ 422; count 2). At his 2024 trial, the jury found Morales guilty of count 1, determining that he personally inflicted great bodily injury, but not guilty of count 2. Regarding aggravating circumstances, Morales admitted that he committed the offense while on probation, and the trial court found not true that his convictions were numerous and increasing in seriousness. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.41(b)(2) & (4).) The trial court sentenced Morales to seven years in prison. Despite Morales’s history of childhood trauma, the trial court selected the midterm of three years for corporal injury to a spouse, finding the aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating ones. The trial court imposed the midterm of four years for the great bodily injury, declining to dismiss that enhancement based on danger to public safety. Morales filed a timely notice of appeal. His appointed appellate counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking us to review the record for error under Wende and Anders. To assist us in our independent review, counsel identified the following potential errors by the trial court: (1)

1 All undesignated section references are to the Penal Code.

2 declining to dismiss the great bodily injury enhancement; (2) not imposing the lower term for the corporal injury to a spouse; (3) failing to instruct the jury on unanimity and the lesser included offense of battery; and (4) admitting Morales’s prior statements and domestic abuse, E.V.’s 911 call, and a responding officer’s body-worn camera footage. Counsel also suggests that we assess whether trial counsel was ineffective regarding the jury’s affirmation of the verdict. Morales has not filed a supplemental brief despite his counsel and this court informing him of his right to do so. DISCUSSION We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders, and considered the issues identified by Morales’s counsel. We find no arguable issue that would result in a reversal or modification of the judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment. Competent counsel has represented Morales on this appeal.

3 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

RUBIN, J.

WE CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

CASTILLO, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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