People v. Nathan CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD300881
- Trial judge
- John Pro
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Michele M. Castillo (author), Buchanan
Analysis
The trial court revoked Nathan's probation for a second violation and sentenced him to two years in state prison. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record found no reasonably arguable issues for reversal.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Revocation of probation and imposition of a two-year state prison sentence“Based on his admission, the court revoked Nathan’s probation and sentenced him to a low-term sentence of two years in prison.” | abuse of discretion | not reached | unsure The appellate court did not explicitly analyze the trial court's discretion or the plea bargain issue raised by counsel; it simply stated it found no reasonably arguable issues after independent review. The opinion does not provide specific reasoning for why the sentence was correct or why the plea bargain was not violated, relying instead on the Wende/Anders framework to affirm. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appellate counsel to file a brief identifying potential issues and the court to independently review the record when counsel finds no arguable issues.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to withdraw from an appeal by filing a brief identifying potential issues and requesting independent court review.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound in following Wende and Anders requirements for independent review. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' opinion because it fails to address the specific legal issue raised by counsel regarding the plea bargain and the choice between state prison and local custody, offering no substantive legal analysis to support the affirmation.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court, after Nathan admitted a second probation violation on his guilty-plea conviction for selling methamphetamine, revoked probation and sentenced him to the low term of two years in state prison, consistent with an indicated sentence given before the admission. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief, Nathan filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Revocation of probation and imposition of a two-year low-term state prison sentence (rather than the 180 days of stayed local custody referenced in the plea) following Nathan's admitted second probation violation.“Did the trial court abuse its discretion and violate the plea bargain by ordering state prison rather than 180 days of local custody?” | abuse of discretion | correct | agree with court The record quoted in the opinion shows the plea agreement itself warned Nathan he could be sentenced to up to four years in prison if he violated probation, and he confirmed at the plea and sentencing hearings that noncompliance would result in custody. The 180 days of local time was expressly stayed pending successful completion of probation, so imposing prison after a second violation was within the bargain and within the court's sentencing discretion. Nathan also admitted the second violation after receiving the court's indicated two-year low-term sentence, which further undercuts any claim of surprise or breach. Nothing in the opinion suggests an arguable issue. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel files a brief identifying no arguable issues, the Court of Appeal must independently review the entire record to determine whether any arguable issues exist.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous may so advise the court, referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, and the court then conducts its own examination of the record.
The appellate opinion: sound — The court followed the Wende/Anders procedure, recited the facts, procedural history, offense, and sentence, noted the issue counsel flagged, confirmed Nathan was invited to file his own brief, and independently reviewed the record before affirming. The quoted record—the plea's express four-year prison exposure warning, the stayed local time conditioned on successful probation, and the admission following an indicated sentence—supports the conclusion that no arguable issue exists.
Opinion
Filed 9/30/25 P. v. Nathan 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, D085221
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD300881)
LORNE RUDRAUFF NATHAN,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, John Pro, Judge. Affirmed. Anna M. Jauregui-Law, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Lorne Rudrauff Nathan appeals from a two-year prison sentence after admitting a second probation violation from a guilty-plea conviction for unlawfully selling methamphetamine. His appointed appellate counsel filed a brief under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 indicating she found no arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks us to review the record for error as Wende requires. We offered Nathan the opportunity to file his own brief, but he has not done so. Based on our independent review of the record, we find no reasonably arguable appellate issues. We thus affirm. I. Nathan has a lengthy criminal history, having sustained at least eight felony convictions between 1988 and 2016. In late 2023, Nathan sold one gram of methamphetamine to an undercover officer. He was arrested and charged for selling or furnishing methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379(a)). He later pled guilty to “unlawfully sell[ing] . . . methamphetamine.” As part of his plea, Nathan and the People agreed: “NOLT [no opposition to local time], [commitment to Sheriff for] 180 days stayed [pending successful completion of probation], 2 years probation, dismiss balance” of charges. In his plea agreement, Nathan acknowledged: “I understand that if I violate any condition of probation I can be sentenced to imprisonment for” up to four years. At the change of plea hearing, Nathan confirmed that his failure to comply with the terms of his probation would result in custody being imposed. In January 2024, the trial court sentenced Nathan to felony probation consistent with his agreement with the People. At the sentencing hearing, Nathan confirmed he needed to “adhere to the terms of” his probation. In April, the court issued a no-bail bench warrant because Nathan had violated the conditions of his probation. In May, Nathan appeared in court and admitted he violated the terms of his probation. The court revoked Nathan’s probation but reinstated it “on the same terms and conditions.” The court instructed Nathan: “You are to 2 report to probation within 72 hours of your release. You understand that?” Nathan responded, “Yes, I do.” Yet after his release, Nathan failed to “complete his 72-hour check-in as directed” and “failed to report” to his probation officer. In September, Nathan again appeared in court. The parties had an unrecorded chambers conference where the court indicated it was prepared to sentence Nathan to the “low term of two years in” prison. “Given that indicated,” defense counsel informed the court Nathan was prepared to admit the probation violation. Nathan then admitted he violated the terms of his probation. Based on his admission, the court revoked Nathan’s probation and sentenced him to a low-term sentence of two years in prison. II. Nathan’s counsel filed a Wende brief setting forth a statement of the case and facts, urging no grounds for reversal, and asking us to independently review the record for error. To assist our review under Anders, 386 U.S. at pp. 744-745, counsel identified one issue she considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Did the trial court abuse its discretion and violate the plea bargain by ordering state prison rather than 180 days of local custody? We reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders and discovered no arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Nathan on this appeal.
3 III. We affirm.
CASTILLO, J.
WE CONCUR:
BUCHANAN, Acting P. J.
HUFFMAN, J.* * Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. 4
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12