People v. Serranosliva CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D084623 · 2025-11-24 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD300164, SCD300642
Trial judge: Dwayne K. Moring
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Truc T. Do (author), Julia C. Kelety

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T03:36Z · confidence low

The trial court denied the defendant's motion to relieve counsel under People v. Marsden and affirmed the judgments in two consolidated criminal cases. The Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record pursuant to People v. Wende and affirmed the judgments, finding no arguable issues for reversal.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of motion to relieve counsel under People v. Marsden “Whether the court erred in denying appellant’s Marsden motion on August 8, 2024.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The appellate court identified the Marsden denial as a potential issue to assist in its independent review but did not explicitly state the standard of review or provide a specific legal analysis of the trial court's ruling. The court concluded generally that it had not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal, implying the denial was not reversible error, but the opinion lacks the specific reasoning required to evaluate the correctness of the trial court's application of the Marsden standard.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appellate counsel to file a brief identifying arguable issues and the court to independently review the record for error when counsel finds no 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 brief stating there are no arguable issues.
relied: People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 — Establishes the standard for a defendant's motion to relieve counsel for ineffective assistance.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound in that it follows the required Wende/Anders protocol for independent review. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' opinion because it fails to provide any specific legal analysis or reasoning for why the identified potential issue (the Marsden denial) was not reversible error, merely stating that no arguable issues were found.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:12Z · confidence low

In two consolidated San Diego cases, the trial court accepted guilty pleas to assault with a deadly weapon (with an on-bail enhancement), assault, and misdemeanor criminal threats, imposed a suspended five-year term conditioned on residential treatment, and, after appellant failed the program, denied his Marsden motion and sentenced him to prison. On appeal counsel filed a Wende brief identifying the Marsden denial as a potential issue; the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of appellant's People v. Marsden motion to relieve appointed counsel (August 8, 2024) “Whether the court erred in denying appellant’s Marsden motion on August 8, 2024.”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion does not state the standard (abuse of discretion governs Marsden rulings) and gives no account of the hearing, the complaints raised, or the trial court's inquiry; it simply reports that independent Wende review disclosed no arguable issue. Nothing in the opinion shows error, but nothing permits independent verification either.
Imposition of the previously suspended prison sentence after appellant failed to complete residential treatment “Appellant failed to complete his residential treatment program.”	unclear	correct	unsure The sentence was the agreed suspended term triggered by failure of the treatment condition, and the court's Wende review found no arguable issue; the opinion does not describe the length of the term actually executed or any sentencing objection, so there is no basis to find error but also little to confirm.

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 error.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal frivolous should file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
relied: People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 — A defendant seeking substitution of appointed counsel must be allowed to state the reasons, and the court must inquire and grant the motion if counsel is inadequate or there is an irreconcilable conflict.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court followed the Wende/Anders procedure, invited a supplemental brief, identified the one potential issue counsel flagged, and affirmed after independent review, which is a defensible and routine result. The opinion omits any description of the Marsden hearing, the standard of review, or the sentence actually executed, and contains an internal inconsistency in case numbers (SCD300146 versus SCD300164), so the reader cannot verify the conclusion.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 11/24/25 P. v. Serranosliva 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, D084623, D084624

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. Nos. SCD300164, SCD300642) JULIO SERRANOSLIVA, Defendant and Appellant.

CONSOLIDATED APPEALS from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Dwayne K. Moring, Judge. Affirmed. Stephanie L. Gunther, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. This appeal is from judgments in two cases which have been consolidated in this appeal. In case No. SCD300642, appellant entered into a plea agreement in which he pleaded guilty to assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code,1 § 245, 1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code. subd. (a)(l)) and admitted the on-bail enhancement. He was sentenced to a suspended five-year term subject to completing a residential treatment program. In case No. SCD300146, Appellant pleaded guilty to assault and one count of misdemeanor criminal threats Appellant failed to complete his residential treatment program. His motion to relieve counsel under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 was denied. Appellant was sentenced to prison. Appellant 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 Appellant the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. Appellate counsel has provided a brief but useful summary of the facts involved in the cases which make up this judgment. We will incorporate it into this opinion for background information. STATEMENT OF FACTS Case No. SCD300164 On September 25, 2023, appellant struck the victim’s car causing the tires to deflate. The victim chased appellant, who in turn hit the victim in the head with a metal object. While being transported to the jail, appellant violently kicked the backseat of the patrol vehicle. Case No. SCD300642 On August 12, 2023, appellant approached two men and asked them if they wanted to fight. Although they both replied that they did not want to fight, appellant hit one of the men in the face. Appellant then took a 2 pocketknife out and told them he was going to kill them. Appellant chased the men and then stopped and began stabbing the tires of the vehicle. On September 9, 2023, appellant contacted a woman in a parking lot and threatened to kill her. Later that day, appellant threatened the same woman and her brother in the alley behind their house. He swung a baseball bat at them and nearly struck the female. The two men struggled and the male victim obtained the baseball bat and struck appellant in the arm with it. DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate 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 potential issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Whether the court erred in denying appellant’s Marsden motion on August 8, 2024. 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 appellant on this appeal.

3 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.* WE CONCUR:

DO, Acting P. J.

KELETY, 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
People v. Marsden Crim. 14119 · 1970-02-26