People v. Rohde CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D085019 · 2025-08-21 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Bernardino County · No. FWV23001586
Trial judge: Jon D. Ferguson
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Julia C. Kelety (author), Buchanan, Michele M. Castillo

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T03:42Z · confidence low

The trial court denied Rohde's motion to withdraw his no-contest plea and sentenced him to 16 years in prison pursuant to a stipulated plea bargain. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after conducting an independent review of the record under People v. Wende, finding no error.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of motion to withdraw plea and imposition of 16-year sentence “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	agree with court The opinion does not explicitly state the standard of review for the underlying trial court rulings (plea withdrawal/sentencing) because it is a Wende appeal where counsel raised no issues. The court simply states it reviewed the record and found no error. In Wende appeals, the court reviews the record for any error, effectively applying a de novo or 'any error' standard to the entire record to ensure the defendant received a fair trial and competent representation. The court found no error.

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 — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly identifies the Wende requirement to review the entire record when counsel raises no issues. It concludes that no error was found, which is a permissible outcome in a Wende appeal if the record supports the judgment.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:22Z · confidence low

The San Bernardino County Superior Court accepted William Paul Rohde's no contest plea to one count of lewd act on a child under 14 with an admitted prior strike, denied his later motion to withdraw the plea, and imposed the stipulated 16-year sentence (upper term of eight years doubled). On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief raising no issues, Rohde 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
Denial of Rohde's motion to withdraw his no contest plea “In August 2024, the court heard and denied Rohde’s motion to withdraw his plea. Rohde was then sentenced pursuant to the plea bargain.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The opinion does not state a standard of review or discuss the merits of the withdrawal motion; it simply reports that independent Wende review of the entire record disclosed no grounds for reversal. The trial court took appropriate procedural steps (relieving the public defender, appointing conflict counsel, ordering transcripts, holding a hearing), and nothing in the opinion suggests an abuse of discretion. With no facts about the basis of the motion, I cannot independently verify the ruling but see no identified error.
Imposition of the stipulated 16-year sentence (upper term of eight years doubled for the prior strike) under the plea bargain “The plea bargain included a stipulated sentence for the upper term, eight years, doubled for the prior strike, for a total of 16 years.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The sentence matches the stipulated term in the negotiated plea, and a defendant who agrees to a specified sentence generally cannot challenge it on appeal; the upper term imposed by stipulation under a plea agreement avoids the aggravating-fact issues otherwise raised by section 1170(b). The appellate court found no error on independent review, and the opinion discloses nothing contradicting that conclusion.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel files a brief raising no specific issues, the Court of Appeal must independently review the entire record for arguable error.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion follows the Wende procedure correctly: it summarizes the charges, plea, and sentence, notes that the defendant was invited to and did not file a supplemental brief, states that the entire record was reviewed, and finds no arguable issue, which is all that is required in a no-issue appeal. It does not mention whether a certificate of probable cause was obtained under Penal Code section 1237.5, which would be needed to reach any challenge to the denial of the plea-withdrawal motion, but that omission does not affect the affirmance.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 8/21/25 P. v. Rohde 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, D085019

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. FWV23001586) WILLIAM PAUL ROHDE, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, Jon D. Ferguson, Judge. Affirmed.

Laura Beth Arnold, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

William Paul Rohde appeals the judgment sentencing him to prison for 16 years after he pled no contest to lewd act on a child under 14 and admitted to a prior strike. 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 The People charged Rohde with two counts of lewd act on a child under 14 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a); subsequent undesignated section references are to this code) and one count of dissuading a witness from causing the prosecution of a crime (§ 136.1, subd. (b)(2)). The People also alleged a life- top allegation (§ 667.61, subds. (a) & (b)) due to a prior conviction for lewd act on a child under 14 by use of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury (§ 288, subd. (b)(1)) as a prior strike and as a serious prior felony conviction (§1170.12, subds. (a)–(d)). After arraignment, the People filed a motion to consolidate these charges with charges filed against Rohde in another case involving the same victim. Rohde filed an opposition to the motion. Prior to the motion hearing, Rohde entered a plea bargain with the district attorney. Pursuant to the plea bargain, Rohde pled no contest to one count of a lewd act on a child under 14 and admitted the strike prior allegation. The plea bargain included a stipulated sentence for the upper term, eight years, doubled for the prior strike, for a total of 16 years. Prior to the sentencing hearing, the trial court learned Rohde wished to move to withdraw his plea. It therefore relieved the public defender, appointed an attorney from the conflicts panel, ordered the preparation of transcripts, and set a motion hearing date. In August 2024, the court heard and denied Rohde’s motion to withdraw his plea. Rohde was then sentenced pursuant to the plea bargain.

2 DISCUSSION Rohde’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 Rohde 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 Rohde received competent representation on appeal. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

KELETY, J.

WE CONCUR:

BUCHANAN, Acting P. J.

CASTILLO, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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