People v. Jenkins CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCS330687
- Trial judge
- Michael J. Popkins
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- William S. Dato (author), Truc T. Do
Analysis
The trial court accepted a guilty plea for felony vandalism and sentenced the defendant to eight months of mandatory supervision consecutive to a sentence in another case. The appellate court affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record found no arguable issues for reversal.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Affirmance of the judgment following a Wende/Anders review“We have reviewed the record for error as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.” | de novo | not reached | agree with court The court applied the standard Wende/Anders review to determine if any arguable issues existed in the record. It concluded that the record did not support any claim of error regarding the plea, sentence, fines, or credits. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to identify arguable issues or file a brief explaining why none exist, and mandates the court to independently review the record.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to withdraw from a criminal appeal when the appeal is wholly frivolous, requiring a brief identifying potentially arguable issues.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for reviewing a record where counsel identifies no meritorious issues. The court explicitly states it reviewed the record and found no arguable errors, which is the required standard of review in this context.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court accepted Jenkins's guilty plea to one count of felony vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594) and sentenced him the same day to eight months of mandatory supervision consecutive to an eight-month term from another case, consistent with the plea agreement. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief, Jenkins filed a supplemental brief relying on matters outside the record, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Acceptance of the guilty plea and imposition of sentence consistent with the plea agreement (including fines, fees, and the determination of no custody credits), reviewed under Wende/Anders independent review of the record“We have reviewed the record for error as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The opinion recites that the sentence matched the plea agreement and that counsel identified the standard Anders issues (voluntariness of plea, conformity of sentence to the bargain, fines and fees, custody credits); the court's independent review found nothing arguable. Nothing in the opinion suggests any legal error, and the court properly disregarded Jenkins's supplemental brief to the extent it relied on matters outside the appellate record. The opinion provides no detail on the plea colloquy or fines, so full verification is not possible, but the procedure followed is the correct one. |
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 — Counsel filing a no-merit brief should identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal to assist the court's review.
- missed: People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 — In a Wende appeal the Court of Appeal must address in its opinion the contentions raised in a defendant's supplemental pro se brief and explain why they fail; the court here only summarily stated the brief relied on matters outside the record.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court followed the Wende/Anders procedure, considered counsel's identified issues, and addressed the defendant's supplemental brief by noting it relied on matters outside the record, reaching a defensible affirmance. It did not, however, describe the contentions in Jenkins's supplemental brief or cite People v. Kelly, which requires the opinion to address issues a defendant personally raises, leaving a minor gap.
Opinion
Filed 10/13/25 P. v. Jenkins 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, D084881
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCS330687)
BOBBY JENKINS,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Michael J. Popkins, Judge. Affirmed. Bobby Jenkins, in pro. per.; and Lindsey M. Ball, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Bobby Jenkins entered into a plea agreement in which he pleaded guilty to one count of felony vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (a)(b)(1)). He agreed to serve a period of eight months of mandatory supervision consecutive to a period of eight months of mandatory supervision arising from another felony case from a different court. Jenkins was sentenced the same day consistently with the plea agreement. Jenkins filed a timely notice of appeal and obtained a certificate of probable cause. 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 review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We advised Jenkins of his right to file his own brief on appeal. Jenkins has filed his own brief relying on alleged matters outside the record on appeal. He has not identified any arguable issues for reversal on appeal based on the record on this appeal. In short, Jenkins’s supplemental brief does not raise any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. STATEMENT OF FACTS Appellate counsel has provided an accurate summary of the evidence at the preliminary hearing as background for the review of the guilty plea. We will incorporate the summary here. On January 26, 2024, San Diego Police Officer Alan Martinez contacted a mall security officer named Carlos Guido concerning a report of a burglary at the Nike store on the 4200 Block of Camino Del La Plaza. Guido stated there was a suspicious vehicle outside of the Nike store. He viewed a subject walking out of the store in a gray shirt and dark pants get in the vehicle, and then drive away to a delivery area in the back. Guido followed the vehicle on his Segway and then blocked the vehicle from exiting by placing his Segway in its way. The driver, later identified as Jenkins, asked him to move or he would drive into the Segway. When Guido did not move, Jenkins drove his vehicle forward, causing damage to the Segway. Surveillance footage from inside the Nike store depicted Jenkins approach a shoe rack with a brown Nike bag. He selected a pair of shoes, sat 2 down, and switched his shoes. After which, he made additional selections of shoes and clothes, and went out of the camera view. Guido’s boss, the director of security, stated it would cost approximately $2,500 to repair the Segway, and $20,000 to purchase a replacement. DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to independently review the record for error as mandated by Wende. To assist the court in its review, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel has identified four possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of the case. 1. Whether Jenkins’s plea was knowing and voluntary. 2. Whether the court imposed a sentence that was consistent with the plea agreement. 3. Whether the court imposed lawful fines and fees. 4. Whether the court properly determined Jenkins was not entitled to custody credits. 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 Jenkins on this appeal. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.
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. 3 WE CONCUR:
DATO, Acting P. J.
DO, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12