People v. Sayles CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from judgments
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD298776, SCD301049, SCD301974
- Trial judge
- Robert O. Amador
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- O'Rourke (author), Buchanan, Michele M. Castillo
Analysis
The trial court sentenced Sayles to a total of 10 years in prison and applied Penal Code section 2933.1 to reduce all presentence custody credits, rejecting the argument that nonviolent felony sentences should not be subject to the reduction. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgments, finding no arguable issues for reversal after an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Application of Penal Code section 2933.1 to reduce presentence custody credits for the entire sentence, including terms attributable to nonviolent felonies.“The court rejected this argument on the grounds that there was no legal question on this issue and applied section 2933.1 to all the custody credits.” | de novo | not reached | unsure The appellate court conducted an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende and Anders v. California, stating it had 'not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.' The court did not explicitly address the legal merits of the section 2933.1 application or the trial court's rejection of the Ramos argument, but affirmed the judgment based on the absence of arguable error. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires independent review of the record by appellate counsel and the court to determine if there are arguable issues for reversal when appointed counsel files a Wende brief.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to file a brief identifying any arguable issues and to notify the defendant of the right to file a supplemental brief.
- relied: People v. Ramos (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 810 — Held that if any part of a sentence is for a violent crime, all custody credits should be reduced under section 2933.1 (as argued by defendant to be incorrectly decided).
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound in its adherence to Wende and Anders requirements, as it documents the independent review and the lack of arguable issues. However, it is substantively thin because it fails to provide any legal analysis or reasoning for why the trial court's application of section 2933.1 was correct, merely stating that no arguable issues were found.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court sentenced Sayles concurrently in three consolidated cases to a total of 10 years and, rejecting defense counsel's argument that People v. Ramos was wrongly decided, applied the 15 percent presentence conduct-credit limit of Penal Code section 2933.1 to all custody credits, including time attributable to the two nonviolent felony cases, awarding 253 actual days and 37 days of conduct credit. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief identifying the credit calculation as a possible issue; Sayles filed no supplemental brief; and the Court of Appeal, after independent review of the record, found no arguable issues and affirmed all three judgments.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Application of Penal Code section 2933.1's 15 percent conduct-credit limitation to all presentence custody credits, including credit attributable to the consecutive eight-month terms for the nonviolent felonies in SCD298776 and SCD301049, where the aggregate sentence included violent felonies (carjacking and robbery).“He asked the court not to apply section 2933.1 to presentence custody time and the two consecutive eight-month sentences attributable to the SCD298776 and SCD301049 crimes because they involved nonviolent felonies.” | unclear | correct | agree with court Section 2933.1 applies to any person convicted of a felony listed in section 667.5, subdivision (c); carjacking and robbery are listed violent felonies. Ramos and subsequent Courts of Appeal have consistently held the limitation applies to the offender rather than offense-by-offense, so when one count in an aggregate sentence is a violent felony the 15 percent cap governs all presentence conduct credit. The award of 37 days on 253 actual days is consistent with the 15 percent cap. The trial court's ruling is correct under settled law, and the appellate court's conclusion that the issue is not arguable is supported, though the opinion does not itself articulate a standard of review or discuss the authority. |
Overall judgments of conviction and sentence in the three cases following guilty pleas (reviewed under Wende/Anders independent 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.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The court followed the Wende/Anders procedure: counsel identified a possible issue, the defendant was given notice and an opportunity to file a supplemental brief and did not, and the court independently reviewed the record. Nothing in the recited facts suggests an error in the sentence, which tracked the plea agreement. The opinion is cursory but the result is defensible. |
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 frivolous may so advise the court and identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, after which the court conducts its own examination of the record.
- relied: People v. Ramos (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 810 — The 15 percent presentence conduct-credit limitation of Penal Code section 2933.1 applies to the offender, not to particular offenses; when a defendant is convicted of a violent felony listed in section 667.5, subdivision (c), the limitation applies to all presentence custody credit even if other counts are nonviolent.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion correctly follows the Wende/Anders procedure and reaches the right result because Ramos and the text of section 2933.1 squarely foreclose the only identified issue, and the credits awarded match the 15 percent cap. It does not, however, state a standard of review or explain why the credit argument is not arguable, leaving the analysis implicit.
Opinion
Filed 10/20/25 P. v. Sayles 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, D084852, D084853, D084855
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. Nos. SCD298776, SCD301049, SCD301974) ARVONTAE ANTHONY SAYLES, Defendant and Appellant.
CONSOLIDATED APPEALS from judgments of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Robert O. Amador, Judge. Affirmed. Joshua Peter Visco, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Arvontae Anthony Sayles appeals the trial court’s calculation of conduct credits when it concurrently sentenced him in three cases.1 1 On July 16, 2024, the trial court sentenced Sayles in Superior Court case Nos. SCD298776, SCD301049, SCD301974 and entered judgment in all three cases. His counsel has filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) to determine whether there are any arguable issues for review. We sent Sayles notice that his attorney had filed a Wende brief and provided him with the opportunity to file a supplemental brief. He has not responded. After our independent review of the record, we affirm the judgments. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Case No. SCD298776 On May 8, 2023, Sayles pled guilty to unlawfully taking a vehicle valued at more than $950 without consent and with the intent to deprive the owner of it. (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a).) The plea deal provided that if Sayles complied with probation, showed proof of employment or school enrollment, and paid restitution, the felony could be reduced to a misdemeanor after 18 months. He was released on his own recognizance pending sentencing. B. Case No. SCD301049 Before the court could sentence him in the prior case, Sayles committed another crime. On December 19, 2023, he pled guilty to unlawfully buying, receiving, concealing, selling, or withholding a motor vehicle. (Pen. Code,2 § 496 subd. (d).) The plea deal provided that the crime to which he pled guilty in SCD298776 would remain a felony. Per the agreed upon plea, the court referred Sayles to be screened for a work furlough program and set a date for a probation hearing and sentencing.
2 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 C. Case No. SCD301974 In the meantime, in August and October 2023, Sayles committed a series of additional crimes. On June 14, 2024, in a second amended felony complaint, the People charged Sayles with 10 counts. He pled guilty the same day to five counts of conspiracy (§ 182, subd. (a)(1), counts 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9), two counts of carjacking (§ 215, subd. (a), counts 2 and 8), two counts of second degree robbery (§§ 211, 212.5, subd. (b), counts 4 and 6), and one count of first degree robbery (§ 211, count 10). He admitted the allegation that he was released from custody on a primary offense when he was arrested for the secondary offense. (§ 12022.1, subd. (b).) Sayles also admitted four aggravating factors. D. Sentencing On July 16, 2024, the court sentenced Sayles in all three cases. The court imposed a five-year sentence on count 2, added two consecutive 16- month terms for counts 4 and 6, and imposed a one-year consecutive term for count 10. It struck the section 12022.1, subdivision (b) enhancement, imposed a concurrent five-year term on count 8, and stayed the remaining sentences. Per the plea agreement in SCD301974, the court further imposed a consecutive eight-month term for each of the guilty pleas in SCD298776 and SCD301049, for a total sentence of 10 years. Counsel for Sayles argued that People v. Ramos (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 810 was incorrectly decided to the extent it provided that, if any part of a sentence was for a violent crime, all the custody credits should be reduced under section 2933.1. He asked the court not to apply section 2933.1 to presentence custody time and the two consecutive eight-month sentences attributable to the SCD298776 and SCD301049 crimes because they involved nonviolent felonies. The court rejected this argument on the grounds that 3 there was no legal question on this issue and applied section 2933.1 to all the custody credits. It gave Sayles 253 actual days of credit and 37 days of custody credits. E. Appeals Sayles filed timely appeals in all three cases on September 11, 2024. On January 1, 2025, we granted Sayles’s unopposed motion to consolidate the appeals. DISCUSSION As previously noted, appellate counsel 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, counsel has identified the following possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: whether the trial court erred in awarding presentence custody credits pursuant to section 2933.1 on the entire sentence. 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 represented Sayles on this appeal.
4 DISPOSITION The judgments in all three cases are affirmed.
O'ROURKE, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
BUCHANAN, J.
CASTILLO, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Ramos F024863 · 1996-11-01
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12