People v. Nawaz CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD294384
- Trial judge
- Evan P. Kirvin
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Michele M. Castillo (author), Truc T. Do, Buchanan
Analysis
The trial court convicted the defendant of 17 counts of lewd acts on a child and one count of false report, sentencing him to 13 years and 8 months in prison. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review under People v. Wende found no reasonably arguable issues for reversal.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Judgment of conviction and sentence“Based on our independent review of the record, we find no reasonably arguable appellate issues. We thus affirm.” | unclear | not reached | unsure The appellate court conducted an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende and found no arguable issues, resulting in an affirmance. The opinion does not analyze specific trial court rulings or standards of review for individual issues, as none were identified by counsel or the court. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to file a brief identifying arguable issues or, if none exist, to request the court to independently review the record for error.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it follows the established Wende procedure for indigent appellants. It correctly states that counsel found no arguable issues and that the court performed the required independent review.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionA San Diego jury convicted Nawaz of 17 counts of lewd acts on a 14- or 15-year-old (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (c)(1)) and one misdemeanor count of false report to a peace officer, found two aggravating factors true, and the trial court imposed 13 years eight months in prison (upper term on count 1 plus consecutive one-third-middle-term sentences on counts 2-17) with fines and assessments. Appointed counsel filed a Wende brief, Nawaz 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
Judgment of conviction on 17 counts of Pen. Code § 288(c)(1) and one count of § 148.5(a), reviewed under Wende independent review of the entire record“Based on our independent review of the record, we find no reasonably arguable appellate issues. We thus affirm.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The opinion applies the Wende procedure: counsel found no arguable issues, the defendant was invited to and did not file a supplemental brief, and the court states it reviewed the entire record. The opinion recites the facts, procedural history, offenses and punishment as People v. Kelly requires. Nothing in the summarized record (victim testimony describing touching of breast and vagina, a scheme to have the victim lie to police, age differential of about three decades) suggests an arguable issue, but the opinion contains no analysis for an outside reader to test. |
Sentence of 13 years eight months: upper term on count 1 based on jury-found aggravating factors (rule 4.421(a)(8) and (11)), consecutive one-third-middle-term sentences on counts 2-17, and fines/assessments“the court imposed the upper term of three years on count 1 followed by consecutive eight-month terms on counts 2-17, which represented one-third the middle term, and credit for time served on count 18.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The jury found the two aggravating circumstances true, which satisfies the requirement in Pen. Code § 1170(b)(2) that facts supporting an upper term be found by the jury. Section 288(c)(1) carries a 1-2-3 year triad, so the three-year upper term and eight-month consecutive terms (one-third of the two-year middle term) are arithmetically correct under § 1170.1. The $720 court operations assessment ($40 x 18) and $540 criminal conviction assessment ($30 x 18) match the 18 convictions, and the $300 restitution and parole revocation fines are the statutory minimums. No sentencing error appears on the face of 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 arguable issues before affirming.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion follows the required Wende procedure, invites a supplemental brief, describes the facts, procedure, convictions and sentence, and affirms after stating it reviewed the entire record; the sentence as described is consistent with the § 288(c)(1) triad, § 1170(b)'s jury-finding requirement, and the per-count assessments. Because the opinion contains no issue-specific analysis, its soundness cannot be independently verified beyond the facial consistency of the recited judgment.
Opinion
Filed 11/21/25 P. v. Nawaz 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, D084195
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD294384)
SIBGHATALLAH MUHAMMAD NAWAZ,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Evan P. Kirvin, Judge. Affirmed. Rex Adam Williams, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. A jury convicted Sibghatallah Muhammad Nawaz of 17 counts of lewd acts committed upon a child of 14 or 15 years of age when he was at least 10 years older than the child (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (c)(1); counts 1-17) and one count of misdemeanor false report of a crime to a peace officer (§ 148.5(a); count 18). For counts 1 through 17, the jury found true that (1) the crimes were carried out with planning, sophistication, or professionalism and (2) Nawaz took advantage of a position of trust and confidence to commit the crimes. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(8) & (11).) Appointed appellate counsel filed a brief under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 indicating he found no arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks us to review the record for error as Wende requires. We offered Nawaz the opportunity to file his own brief, but he has not done so. Based on our independent review of the record, we find no reasonably arguable appellate issues. We thus affirm. I. A. The charges against Nawaz stemmed from his conduct over a four-month period during the victim’s freshman year of high school. Nawaz is about three decades older than the victim. Nawaz, who sometimes drove his sons and the victim to or from school, began spending time alone with the victim almost every weekday. At that point, the victim considered herself “[w]ay closer” to Nawaz than to “anyone else” in her life. Nawaz then devised a plan for the victim to lie to the police about her parents abusing her. He encouraged the victim to frequently masturbate over both audio and video calls with him. When together in person, Nawaz at various times touched the victim’s breast or vagina. The jury convicted Nawaz on all counts and found the two associated aggravating factors true. B. The court sentenced Nawaz to a total prison term of 13 years and eight months. To reach that total prison time, the court imposed the upper term of three years on count 1 followed by consecutive eight-month terms on counts 2-17, which represented one-third the middle term, and credit for time 2 served on count 18. The court also imposed a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4(b)), a $300 parole revocation restitution fine (§ 1202.45), $1,540 in restitution to the victim (§ 1202.4(f)), a $720 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8), and a $540 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373). II. Nawaz’s counsel filed a Wende brief setting forth a statement of the case and facts, urging no grounds for reversal, and asking us to independently review the record for error. We reviewed the entire record as required and discovered no arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Nawaz on this appeal. III. We affirm the judgment.
CASTILLO, J.
WE CONCUR:
DO, Acting P. J.
BUCHANAN, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12