People v. Strong CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD303467
- Trial judge
- Rachel Cano
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- William S. Dato (author), Truc T. Do
Analysis
The trial court accepted a guilty plea to business burglary and sentenced the defendant to 16 months in prison pursuant to a plea agreement. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, finding no arguable issues for reversal.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of certificate of probable cause for ineffective assistance of counsel claim“The request for a certificate of probable cause was denied.” | unclear | not reached | unsure The opinion notes the denial but does not analyze the merits of the ineffective assistance claim or the standard for granting a certificate of probable cause, as the appeal proceeded via a Wende review which found no arguable issues. |
Sentence of 16 months in prison“Strong was sentenced to a 16-month term as contemplated by the plea agreement.” | de novo | correct | agree with court The court reviewed the record to ensure the sentence complied with the plea agreement and found no error, as the sentence matched the stipulated terms. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires independent review of the record by the appellate court when appointed counsel files a brief stating no arguable issues exist.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to withdraw from representation on appeal by filing a brief identifying potential issues and requesting independent court review.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the Wende/Anders framework for reviewing a record where counsel identifies no issues. It accurately notes the sentence complied with the plea agreement, which is the primary substantive check in such cases.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court accepted Clifford Strong's guilty plea to commercial burglary (Pen. Code, § 459), imposed the stipulated 16-month prison term, dismissed the remaining charges and allegations, and denied his request for a certificate of probable cause premised on ineffective assistance of counsel. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief identifying only whether Strong was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement; the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Imposition of the stipulated 16-month prison sentence under the plea agreement (the only potential issue identified by appellate counsel)“Strong was sentenced to a 16-month term as contemplated by the plea agreement.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The opinion states the plea agreement called for 16 months and that the court imposed exactly that term, so the sentence conformed to the bargain; nothing in the opinion suggests any deviation. The court applied the independent record review required by Wende and Anders rather than a conventional standard of review, and its conclusion that no arguable issue exists is consistent with the facts recited. |
Denial of certificate of probable cause on ineffective-assistance claim (noted procedurally; not substantively reviewed)“The request for a certificate of probable cause was denied.” | unclear | not reached | agree with court The court noted the denial but did not analyze it; without a certificate, challenges to the validity of the plea (including pre-plea ineffective assistance) are not cognizable on appeal, so the court's silence on this point is procedurally consistent with the limited scope of the appeal. The opinion does not expressly address the scope limitation, which is a minor gap but does not affect the result. |
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 before affirming.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous must so advise the court and file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
The appellate opinion: sound — The court followed the Wende/Anders procedure: it recited the plea, the stipulated sentence, counsel's identified issue, and the notice given to the defendant, and it independently reviewed the record and found no arguable issue. The opinion is brief and does not expressly discuss the effect of the denied certificate of probable cause on the scope of the appeal, but that omission does not undermine a plainly correct affirmance of a sentence matching the plea agreement.
Opinion
Filed 10/10/25 P. v. Strong 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, D084724
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD303467)
CLIFFORD WAYNE STRONG,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Rachel Cano, Judge. Affirmed. Siri Shetty, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Appellant, Clifford Strong entered into a plea agreement in which he pleaded guilty to burglary of a business (Pen. Code, § 459). The parties stipulated that Strong would receive a prison sentence of 16 months and that the remaining charges and allegations would be dismissed. Strong was sentenced to a 16-month term as contemplated by the plea agreement. Strong filed a timely notice of appeal. He requested a certificate of probable cause based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The request for a certificate of probable cause was denied. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 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 advised Strong of his right to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. There were no contested evidentiary hearings leading to this guilty plea. Accordingly, we will omit a statement of facts in this opinion. DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to independently review the record for error. To assist the court in its review of the record, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel has identified a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Whether Strong was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement. We have reviewed the record for error as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Strong on this appeal.
2 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.* WE CONCUR:
DATO, Acting P. J.
DO, 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. 3
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12