People v. Cordero CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D085000 · 2025-09-16 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a postjudgment order
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. CPR230636
Trial judge: Polly H. Shamoon
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: O'Rourke (author), Truc T. Do, Buchanan

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T03:41Z · confidence high

The trial court revoked, reinstated, and modified Cordero’s postrelease community supervision status and ordered him to serve 180 days in custody after he knowingly waived his right to counsel. The Court of Appeal affirmed the order, finding no arguable issues for reversal after independent review of the record.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Trial court's decision to allow Cordero to represent himself at the revocation hearing. “Cordero confirmed that he understood the risks of self-representation, and, despite those risks, the record indicates he knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel and invoked his right of self-representation.”	unclear	not reached	agree with court The appellate court reviewed the transcript and determined that Cordero knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel, finding no arguable issue for appeal. The court relied on the constitutional right to self-representation established in Faretta and Jenkins, concluding the waiver was valid based on the signed form and on-record questioning.
Scope of appeal regarding Cordero's supplemental arguments concerning prior orders. “The additional arguments Cordero raises are not within the scope of this appeal from that order because they involve the prior criminal protective order and plea agreement he did not appeal.”	unclear	not reached	agree with court The court held that the notice of appeal limited the scope to the September 2024 order, excluding arguments about prior protective orders and plea agreements. This aligns with the principle that the notice of appeal defines the scope of review by identifying the specific judgment or order being appealed.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appellate counsel to identify arguable issues and the court to independently review the record when counsel finds no merit.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to withdraw from an appeal where no arguable issues exist, requiring a brief identifying potential issues and court review.
relied: Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 — A criminal defendant has a constitutional right to conduct their own defense if they knowingly and intelligently waive the right to counsel.
relied: People v. Jenkins (2000) 22 Cal.4th 900 — Reaffirms the right to self-representation and the requirement for a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel.
relied: Morton v. Wagner (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 963 — The notice of appeal defines the scope of the appeal by identifying the particular judgment or order being appealed.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly applies the Wende/Anders framework to review the record and accurately applies Faretta and Jenkins to validate the waiver of counsel. It also correctly limits the scope of review to the specific order appealed from, excluding unrelated prior proceedings.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:15Z · confidence low

The San Diego Superior Court revoked, reinstated, and modified Rogelio Cordero's postrelease community supervision after his probation officer testified to veiled threats, refusal of a residence search, and positive marijuana tests, ordering him to serve 180 days in custody; at the hearing the court granted Cordero's request to represent himself. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief, Cordero filed a supplemental letter, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issue (including as to the Faretta waiver), held Cordero's complaints about the earlier protective order and plea were outside the scope of the appeal, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Grant of Cordero's request to represent himself (Faretta waiver) at the September 2024 revocation hearing “Cordero confirmed that he understood the risks of self-representation, and, despite those risks, the record indicates he knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel and invoked his right of self-representation.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The opinion recites that Cordero initialed and signed a waiver form while still represented, that the court questioned him on the record, and that he acknowledged the risks of self-representation; that is the showing Faretta and Jenkins require for a knowing and intelligent waiver. The court does not name a standard of review (a Faretta waiver is ordinarily examined de novo on the whole record), but the described facts support its conclusion.
Order revoking, reinstating, and modifying postrelease community supervision and committing Cordero to 180 days in custody “The court revoked, reinstated, and modified Cordero’s postrelease community supervision status and he was ordered to serve 180 days in custody.”	unclear	correct	agree with court Under Wende and Anders the court independently reviewed the record and found no arguable issue. The probation officer's testimony about veiled threats, refusal of a search, and repeated positive marijuana tests supplies evidence of violations, and a 180-day custodial term on reinstatement is within what the PRCS statutes permit; nothing in the opinion suggests legal error, though the opinion does not state the deferential standard that would govern the revocation decision.
Prior criminal protective order and plea agreement challenged in Cordero's supplemental brief “The additional arguments Cordero raises are not within the scope of this appeal from that order because they involve the prior criminal protective order and plea agreement he did not appeal.”	unclear	not reached	agree with court The notice of appeal was from the September 2024 postjudgment order only, and under Morton v. Wagner the notice defines the scope of the appeal. Challenges to the underlying plea and the earlier protective order would have required a timely appeal from the judgment (and, for the plea, a certificate of probable cause), so declining to reach them is correct.

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 without merit should file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
relied: Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 — A criminal defendant who knowingly and intelligently waives counsel has a constitutional right to self-representation.
relied: People v. Jenkins (2000) 22 Cal.4th 900 — A defendant's waiver of counsel must be knowing and intelligent before the right of self-representation may be exercised.
relied: Morton v. Wagner (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 963 — The notice of appeal defines the scope of the appeal by identifying the particular judgment or order appealed from.
missed: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Wende/Anders procedures are constitutionally required only in a first appeal as of right where there is a right to counsel; in other postjudgment appeals the Court of Appeal is not required to conduct independent review but may do so in its discretion. The court did not address whether Wende review was required for this appeal from a PRCS revocation order, though its decision to review independently anyway makes the omission inconsequential.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion applies Wende, Anders, Faretta, and Morton v. Wagner correctly, and the facts it recites about the waiver colloquy and the revocation evidence support affirmance. It does not, however, state the standard of review for either the Faretta waiver or the revocation decision, and it does not address Delgadillo's holding on when Wende review is required for postjudgment appeals, although conducting the review anyway cured any gap.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

Filed 9/16/25 P. v. Cordero 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, D085000

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. CPR230636)

ROGELIO CORDERO,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Polly H. Shamoon, Judge. Affirmed. Rogelio Cordero, in pro. per; and Kenneth H. Nordin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Rogelio Cordero is serving a sentence for contempt of court for violations of a protective or stay-away order involving domestic violence (Pen. Code, §§ 166, subds. (c)(1) & (4), 1203.097). Initially sentenced to two years in state prison, Cordero was released from prison on postrelease community supervision in August 2023. He then had his status revoked, reinstated, and modified in January 2024 and May 2024. In August 2024, the probation department again filed a petition to revoke Cordero’s community service status. At the hearing on the petition, the court granted Cordero’s request to represent himself. Cordero’s probation officer testified Cordero failed to comply with the conditions of his postrelease community supervision by making “what we would consider to be veiled threats” toward his probation officer, failing to allow a search of his residence, and testing positive multiple times for marijuana use. Cordero explained that he was successful in his employment despite the stress he continues to be under and that he wished to move on with his life. He denied having an interest in vengeance and stated that more time in custody would not help him. The court revoked, reinstated, and modified Cordero’s postrelease community supervision status and he was ordered to serve 180 days in custody. Cordero filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) 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 notified Cordero of his right to file his own brief on appeal. He responded with a letter expressing various concerns about the court’s determinations and his treatment by the probation department. He does not raise any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. DISCUSSION As we noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to review the record for error. To assist the court, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this 2 appeal: Whether the court erred in allowing Cordero to represent himself at the September 2024 evidentiary hearing on the petition for revocation of community supervision. A criminal defendant who knowingly and intelligently waives the right to counsel has a constitutional right to conduct his or her own defense. (Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806, 819; People v. Jenkins (2000) 22 Cal.4th 900, 959.) Here, Cordero initialed and signed a waiver form while still represented by counsel, and the trial court questioned Cordero on the record before granting his request. Cordero confirmed that he understood the risks of self-representation, and, despite those risks, the record indicates he knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel and invoked his right of self-representation. We have reviewed the hearing transcript, and we see no arguable issue for appeal. As noted, Cordero also filed his own supplemental brief raising additional issues. The only order challenged in the current appeal is the September 2024 order revoking, reinstating, and modifying Cordero’s postrelease community supervision status, and committing him to serve 180 days in custody. The notice of appeal defines the scope of appeal by identifying the particular judgment or order being appealed. (Morton v. Wagner (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 963, 967.) The additional arguments Cordero raises are not within the scope of this appeal from that order because they involve the prior criminal protective order and plea agreement he did not appeal. We have independently reviewed the record consistent with the requirements of Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Cordero on this appeal.

3 DISPOSITION The postjugment order is affirmed.

O'ROURKE, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

DO, J.

BUCHANAN, J.

Cites, in this corpus

Morton v. Wagner H028942 · 2007-11-07
People v. Jenkins S007522 · 2000-06-28
People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12