People v. Minggia CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCE425364
- Trial judge
- Louis R. Hanoian (retired judge)
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Buchanan (author), Laurence D. Rubin
Analysis
The trial court sentenced the defendant to a five-year prison term following her rejection from Re-entry and Drug Courts, including a restitution order of $44.07. On appeal, the court affirmed the judgment after an independent review under People v. Wende found no arguable issues for reversal.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Imposition of a restitution order for $44.07 without a restitution hearing“Whether the court erred in imposing a restitution order for $44.07 without a restitution hearing.” | unclear | not reached | unsure The court identified this as a potential issue but stated it had not discovered any arguable issues for reversal after independent review, effectively rejecting the claim without detailed analysis. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires independent review of the record when appointed appellate counsel files a brief stating no arguable issues exist.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires counsel to identify potentially meritorious issues and the court to independently review the record in cases where counsel finds no arguable issues.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it follows the required Wende/Anders procedure for reviewing a case where counsel identifies no issues. However, it provides no substantive legal analysis for the specific restitution issue identified by counsel, leaving the reasoning implicit in the general statement that no arguable issues were found.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court accepted Minggia's guilty plea to robbery with admitted priors and a parole aggravator, referred her to Re-entry Court, and after she was rejected by both Re-entry Court and Drug Court imposed the previously stayed five-year term with a $44.07 restitution order. On appeal counsel filed a Wende brief, Minggia 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
Imposition of the previously stayed five-year sentence after rejection from Re-entry Court and Drug Court, following the guilty plea and admissions“Ultimately Minggia was rejected by the Re-entry Court and also rejected by Drug Court. Minggia was sentenced to the previously stayed five-year term.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The sentence was the term contemplated by the plea agreement if the alternative programs failed; the court conducted independent Wende/Anders review and found no arguable issue, and nothing in the recited record suggests the sentence departed from the bargain. The opinion gives too little detail to verify independently, so agreement rests on the limited record described. |
Imposition of a $44.07 restitution order without a restitution hearing (issue identified by counsel under Anders)“Whether the court erred in imposing a restitution order for $44.07 without a restitution hearing.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The court did not analyze this issue separately but found no arguable issue after independent review. A restitution hearing under section 1202.4 is generally required only when the defendant disputes the amount, and nothing in the opinion indicates Minggia objected or requested a hearing, so a forfeiture or no-dispute conclusion is defensible, though the opinion does not say so expressly. |
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 frivolous should so advise the court and identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the standard Wende/Anders procedure, notes the one possible issue flagged by counsel, and affirms after independent review, which is a defensible result on a plea-bargained sentence with a trivial restitution amount. It does not explain why the restitution hearing issue lacks merit or whether a certificate of probable cause was needed for any aspect of the appeal, leaving the reasoning thin.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
record incompleteOpinion
Filed 10/15/25 P. v. Minggia 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, D085101
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCE425364)
SHAWNA RENEE MINGGIA,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Louis R. Hanoian, Judge. (Retired Judge of San Diego Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed. Charles Thomas Anderson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Shawna Renee Minggia entered into a plea agreement in which she pleaded guilty to one count of robbery (Pen. Code,1 § 211), admitted the aggravating factor that she was on parole from state prison at the time of the 1 Statutory references are to the Penal Code. offense (§ 1203.085, subd. (a)), and admitted she had suffered two serious felony prior convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)) and two strike priors (§ 667, subds. (b)–(i)). The court agreed to refer Minggia to Re-entry Court creating the possibility she would end up with a five-year suspended sentence. Ultimately Minggia was rejected by the Re-entry Court and also rejected by Drug Court. Minggia was sentenced to the previously stayed five- year term. Minggia filed a timely notice of appeal. 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 offered Minggia the opportunity to file her own brief on appeal, but she has not responded. DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to independently review the record. To assist the court in its review, 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 the court erred in imposing a restitution order for $44.07 without a restitution hearing. We have independently reviewed the record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Minggia on this appeal.
2 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:
BUCHANAN, Acting P. J.
RUBIN, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12