People v. Delgado CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D085211 · 2025-10-08 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD302023
Trial judge: Daniel B. Goldstein
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: O'Rourke (author), Laurence D. Rubin, Joan K. Irion

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T03:39Z · confidence low

The trial court convicted the defendant of assault with a deadly weapon and battery, denied a Marsden motion, found the defendant competent, and admitted a bystander's description of the defendant's tattoos. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review under Wende found no arguable issues for reversal.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of Marsden motion “We conclude the court did not err by denying the Marsden motion, which Delgado brought on the day trial began”	unclear	not reached	agree with court agree with court
Finding of competency to stand trial “finding Delgado competent to stand trial”	unclear	not reached	agree with court agree with court
Admission of bystander's description of facial tattoos “or admitting a bystander’s description of Delgado’s facial tattoos”	unclear	not reached	agree with court agree with court

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires independent review of the record by the appellate court when appointed counsel identifies no arguable issues.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to file a brief identifying potential issues for the court to review.
relied: People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 — Governs the standard for granting a motion for new counsel due to a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is a standard Wende/Anders review where the court states it reviewed the record and found no arguable issues. It is sound because it follows the mandatory procedure for such appeals, though it provides no detailed analysis of the specific legal errors raised by counsel.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:01Z · confidence low

A San Diego jury convicted Jose Daniel Delgado of assault with a deadly weapon and battery, the trial court found aggravating factors true and sentenced him to three years in state prison, after having denied his day-of-trial Marsden motion, found him competent, and admitted a non-testifying bystander's description of his facial tattoos. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief identifying four potential issues, Delgado filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal, after independent review, found no arguable issues and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of Delgado's Marsden motion brought on the day trial began “We conclude the court did not err by denying the Marsden motion, which Delgado brought on the day trial began”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion states only its conclusion without describing the Marsden hearing, the grounds asserted, or the trial court's inquiry; Marsden denials are ordinarily reviewed for abuse of discretion, and a day-of-trial motion is often properly denied, but nothing in the opinion allows independent verification.
Finding that Delgado was competent to stand trial “finding Delgado competent to stand trial”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion gives no facts about the competency proceedings, the evidence considered, or the basis for the finding; a competency finding is normally reviewed for substantial evidence, but the opinion supplies none of the record needed to assess it.
Admission of a non-testifying bystander's out-of-court description of Delgado's facial tattoos over confrontation clause and hearsay objections “or admitting a bystander’s description of Delgado’s facial tattoos.”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion does not explain whether the bystander's statements were testimonial, whether they were offered for a non-hearsay purpose, or whether any error was harmless; without those facts the conclusion cannot be independently confirmed, though a Wende opinion is not required to supply them.

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 arguable issues before affirming.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous should 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, and the trial court must inquire into the basis for the request before ruling.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court followed the Wende/Anders procedure, identified counsel's four potential issues, invited a supplemental brief, and conducted an independent record review before affirming, which is all the law requires in this posture. It nevertheless states bare conclusions on the Marsden, competency, and confrontation/hearsay issues without any explanation of the facts or legal basis, leaving the reader unable to evaluate those rulings from the opinion itself.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 10/8/25 P. v. Delgado 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, D085211

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD302023)

JOSE DANIEL DELGADO,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Daniel B. Goldstein, Judge. Affirmed.

Brad J. Poore, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Jose Daniel Delgado’s appellate counsel has filed a brief under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating he has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel identifies four potential issues under Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, 744-745 (Anders) and asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Delgado the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he did not do so. Our independent review confirms there are no arguable issues on appeal. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A jury convicted Delgado of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code,1 § 245, subd. (a)(1); count 1) and battery (§ 242; count 4). It found him not guilty of exhibiting a deadly weapon other than a firearm. (§ 417, subd. (a)(1).) The jury hung on an assault charge (§ 240; count 3), and the court declared a mistrial on that count. In bifurcated proceedings, the court found true as factors in aggravation that Delgado has had numerous and increasingly serious prior convictions (California Rules of Court, rule 4.421(b)(2)), and he has served a prior state prison or local prison term (California Rules of Court, rule 4.421(b)(3)). The court sentenced Delgado to three years in state prison and imposed various fines and fees, which it stayed based on his inability to pay. As stated, to assist the court in its review, and in compliance with Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, counsel has identified four possible issues that this court should consider in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: 1) Whether the court erred in denying Delgado’s motion under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden); 2) Whether the court erred in finding Delgado competent to stand trial;

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 3) Whether the court’s admission into evidence of a description of Delgado’s facial tattoos by a bystander who did not testify violated Delgado’s confrontation rights under the federal Constitution; and 4) Whether the court should have excluded that bystander’s out-of- court statements as impermissible hearsay. We have reviewed the entire record as required under Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738 and considered the potential issues raised by appointed counsel. We conclude the court did not err by denying the Marsden motion, which Delgado brought on the day trial began; finding Delgado competent to stand trial; or admitting a bystander’s description of Delgado’s facial tattoos. There are no other arguable issues that would result in a reversal or modification of the judgment. Competent counsel has represented Delgado on this appeal. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

O’ROURKE, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

IRION, J.

RUBIN, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12
People v. Marsden Crim. 14119 · 1970-02-26