People v. Dene CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D085212 · 2025-10-16 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD301466
Trial judge: Polly H. Shamoon
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Buchanan (author), Judith D. McConnell, Michele M. Castillo

Analysis

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

The trial court denied defendant's Marsden motion for new counsel and imposed an electronic search condition on his probation over objection. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record under Wende and Anders, finding no reasonably arguable issues.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of Marsden motion for new counsel “1) The trial court’s rejection of Dene’s Marsden motion; and”	unclear	not reached	unsure The opinion states that counsel identified the issue and the court reviewed the record, but it does not articulate the standard of review (abuse of discretion) or provide specific reasoning for why the trial court's denial was correct, only stating generally that no reasonably arguable issues were found.
Imposition of electronic search condition on probation “2) The trial court’s imposition of an electronic search condition as a condition of probation, over objection by the defense.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The opinion lists this as a potential issue considered by counsel but does not provide any analysis, standard of review, or specific reasoning for affirming the trial court's decision to impose this condition.

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 for error when counsel finds no arguable issues.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires independent review of the record by the appellate court when appointed counsel files a no-merit brief.
relied: People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 — Establishes the standard for a defendant's motion to substitute counsel.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is a standard Wende/Anders review that identifies potential issues but provides no substantive legal analysis or reasoning for why those issues fail. It relies entirely on the court's independent review without explaining the application of law to the facts.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:29Z · confidence low

The trial court accepted Dene's guilty plea to possession of methamphetamine for sale and misdemeanor failure to appear, denied his day-of-sentencing Marsden motion, and placed him on two years of formal probation per the stipulated agreement, including an electronic search condition imposed over defense objection. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief identifying the Marsden denial and the electronic search condition as possible issues; the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no reasonably arguable issue, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of Dene's Marsden motion made on the day of sentencing “The trial court’s rejection of Dene’s Marsden motion; and”	unclear	correct	unsure A Marsden denial is ordinarily reviewed for abuse of discretion, but the opinion does not state a standard or describe what Dene said at the hearing or why the court denied the motion; it only reports that after independent Wende/Anders review no arguable issue exists. Without any description of the Marsden colloquy, the record quoted in the opinion is insufficient to independently evaluate the ruling.
Imposition of an electronic search condition as a term of probation over defense objection “The trial court’s imposition of an electronic search condition as a condition of probation, over objection by the defense.”	unclear	correct	unsure Probation conditions are reviewed for abuse of discretion under Lent, with constitutional challenges reviewed de novo, and electronic search conditions require a Ricardo P. proportionality showing. The facts (486 grams of methamphetamine, baggies, scale, cash, and a cell phone found with the drugs) plausibly support a nexus between the phone and the sales offense, but the opinion gives no analysis, so the conclusion cannot be independently verified from the opinion.

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 may file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, and the court must then review the record itself.
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 court must inquire into the complaints before ruling.
missed: In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113 — An electronic search probation condition is invalid under Lent where the burden on privacy is substantially disproportionate to the condition's legitimate supervisory interests given the record of the offense and the probationer's history.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the required Wende/Anders procedure: it identifies the issues counsel flagged, states that the court independently reviewed the entire record, and finds no arguable issue, which satisfies People v. Kelly's requirements for such opinions. It does not, however, explain why the electronic search condition survives Ricardo P. or describe the Marsden hearing, so the result is defensible but unverifiable from the face of the opinion.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 10/16/25 P. v. Dene 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, D085212

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD301466) DAVID CHRISTOPHER DENE, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Polly H. Shamoon, Judge. Affirmed. Annie Fraser, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. David Christopher Dene appeals from a judgment following his guilty plea to possession for sale of a controlled substance and a misdemeanor failure to appear, in exchange for a stipulated sentence of two years of formal probation with conditions including successful completion of a residential treatment program. Appellate counsel filed a brief presenting no argument for reversal but inviting this court to review the record for error under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders). We offered Dene the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not done so. Having independently reviewed the entire record for error as required by Anders and Wende, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY Law enforcement officers saw Dene smoking from a glass pipe on Fiesta Island in a tent that was open on two sides. When they tried to arrest Dene for use of a controlled substance, Dene struggled against the officers and attempted to flee. Incident to the arrest, officers searched Dene and found $1,254 in cash in his pocket. Inside his backpack and tent officers found a digital scale, hundreds of 2x2-inch plastic baggies, a small bag containing a crystalline substance, a half-gallon Ziplock bag containing a crystalline substance within a Honey Maid graham cracker box, and a cell phone. The crystalline substance totaled 486.3 grams of methamphetamine. After Dene was released, he failed to appear for court. Dene was charged with possession for sale of a controlled substance in violation of Health and Safety Code1 section 11378, possession of paraphernalia used for narcotics in violation of section 11364, resisting an officer in violation of Penal Code section 148, subdivision (a)(1), and failure to appear in violation of Penal Code section 1320, subdivision (b). The complaint alleged four prior felonies, including two prior possession for sale convictions in 1995 and 2005. Dene pled guilty to one count of possession for sale of a controlled substance and a misdemeanor failure to appear. The parties’ agreement provided Dene would be placed on formal probation for two years with 1 All further statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code unless otherwise indicated. 2 conditions including successful completion of a residential treatment program.

On the day of sentencing, Dene made a Marsden2 motion, which was denied. The court sentenced Dene consistent with the terms of the plea agreement. DISCUSSION Appellate counsel filed a Wende brief asking the court to review the record for error. To assist the court in its review and in compliance with Anders, counsel identified the following possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: 1) The trial court’s rejection of Dene’s Marsden motion; and 2) The trial court’s imposition of an electronic search condition as a condition of probation, over objection by the defense. We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders and have considered the possible issues identified by Dene’s counsel. We found no reasonably arguable issues supporting a reversal. Competent counsel has represented Dene in this appeal.

2 People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118. 3 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

BUCHANAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

MCCONNELL, P. J.

CASTILLO, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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