People v. Faulcon CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD300421, SCE387345, SCN448841
- Trial judge
- Dwayne K. Moring
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Judith D. McConnell (author), O'Rourke
Analysis
The trial court sentenced the defendant to a combined term of six years and four months in prison following guilty pleas in three separate cases and the admission of two prior strikes. On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende and finding no arguable issues for reversal.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Refusal to strike one or both of the defendant's prior serious felony convictions (strike priors).“Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it refused to strike one or both of Faulcon’s strike priors.” | abuse of discretion | not reached | unsure The appellate court identified the issue as a potential ground for appeal but concluded, after independent review, that it did not constitute an arguable issue for reversal. The court did not provide specific reasoning for why the trial court's exercise of discretion was correct, relying instead on the general finding of no error in the record. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to independently review the record for error when no arguable issues are identified.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires counsel to file a brief identifying any arguable issues and the court to independently review the record.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for reviewing appeals where counsel identifies no arguable issues. However, it provides no substantive legal analysis for the specific sentencing issue raised (striking priors), leaving the reader without insight into why the trial court's discretion was not abused.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court accepted April Faulcon's guilty pleas in three San Diego cases, including admissions of two strike priors, declined to strike the priors, and sentenced her to the agreed lid of six years four months. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief, the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Refusal to strike one or both of Faulcon's prior strike convictions at sentencing“Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it refused to strike one or both of Faulcon’s strike priors.” | abuse of discretion | correct | unsure The opinion identifies this as the sole Anders issue but provides no facts about the Romero ruling or the court's reasons; it simply concludes after independent review that no arguable issue exists. Given a negotiated lid and a record of repeated theft offenses including a robbery, the conclusion is plausible, but the opinion gives nothing to verify it. |
Acceptance of guilty pleas and imposition of the six-year-four-month sentence per the plea agreement“Faulcon was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The court conducted the independent review required by Wende and Anders and found no error; nothing in the recited record suggests a defect in the pleas or sentence, and the sentence matched the indicated lid. |
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 without merit must file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the standard Wende procedure, notes the Anders issue counsel raised, and affirms after independent review, which is a defensible result on a plea-based appeal with an agreed sentencing lid. It does not discuss People v. Superior Court (Romero) or the record of the Romero ruling, nor whether a certificate of probable cause was obtained, so the reasoning on the one identified issue is conclusory.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
record incompleteOpinion
Filed 11/6/25 P. v. Faulcon 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, D084911
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. Nos. SCD300421, SCE387345, SCN448841) APRIL FAULCON, Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Dwayne K. Moring, Judge. Affirmed. Ryan Peabody, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
April Faulcon entered into a plea agreement in which she pleaded guilty to felony offenses in three separate cases and admitted two strike priors. Faulcon was sentenced to a combined term of six years four months in prison. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Faulcon was charged and convicted in three separate cases, San Diego Superior Court case Nos. SCD300421, SCE387345, and SCN448841. In case No. SCD300421, Faulcon pleaded guilty to two counts of burglary (Pen. Code,1 § 459) and two counts of grand theft (§ 487, subd. (a)) and admitted two prior strikes. The court gave an indicated lid of six years four months on the combined sentence for the three cases. In case No. SCE387345, Faulcon pleaded guilty to robbery (§ 211 ) and grand theft. The court applied the same sentencing lid as was done in the other two cases. Faulcon was referred to Drug Court but failed to appear and was not accepted by that court. In case No. SCN448841, Faulcon pleaded guilty to one count of burglary and one count of grand theft with the same sentencing lid as in the other cases. Faulcon was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement. Faulcon 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 advised Faulcon of her right to file her own brief on appeal, but she has not responded. STATEMENT OF FACTS Counsel has provided a useful summary of the facts of the offenses in each of the three cases in this appeal. We will incorporate that summary in this opinion to provide background.
1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 A. Case No. SCE387345 On September 27, 2018, sheriff’s deputies responded to a call of two females stealing a battery charger from the Tractor Supply Company in El Cajon. Faulcon’s accomplice stood at the cash register holding a power blower. The victim followed the two females out of the store and told them they needed to pay for the items. The two females went inside their car and locked the door. Faulcon was the driver. The victim stood behind the car in an attempt to prevent the car from leaving. Faulcon drove the car backwards hitting the victim in the leg. Faulcon stopped and then drove backwards again hitting the victim in the leg. Faulcon was able to drive off with the stolen merchandise. This formed the basis for the robbery in count 1. On July 25, 2018, Faulcon entered Leslie’s Pool Supplies in El Cajon and fled with a salt generator valued at $1,495. This formed the basis for the grand theft of personal property in count 3. B. Case No. SCD300421 As to counts 1 and 2, on June 7, 2023, Faulcon and codefendant entered an Ulta Beauty store in San Diego. Both women walked over to the fragrance section and filled up their bags and baskets with 83 bottles of fragrances, valued at $10,400. For counts 3 and 4, on May 20, 2023, Faulcon and another female entered the same Ulta Beauty store in San Diego. Faulcon placed multiple boxes of fragrances in her tote bag. The other female placed various merchandise into her purse. Both women left the store with the stolen merchandise valued at $3,977. C. Case No. SCN448841 On July 31, 2023, Faulcon and another female entered the Ulta Beauty store in San Marcos. Faulcon concealed a large number of fragrances in a 3 tote bag that she had brought into the store. She left the store without paying for the merchandise, which was documented as $3,000 in value. DISCUSSION As we have indicated, counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to independently review the record for error. 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 trial court abused its discretion when it refused to strike one or both of Faulcon’s strike priors. We have independently 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 Faulcon on this appeal. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.* WE CONCUR:
MCCONNELL, P. J.
O’ROURKE, 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. 4
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12