People v. Arguilez CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D085317 · 2025-12-09 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from an order
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCE211708
Trial judge: David J. Danielsen
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Michele M. Castillo (author), Judith D. McConnell, Joan K. Irion

Analysis

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

The trial court resentenced the defendant to 25 years-to-life under Penal Code section 1172.75, declining to strike his prior strike felonies but reducing his indeterminate term from 75 years-to-life. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, 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
Denial of motion to strike prior strike felonies during resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75 “The court declined to strike the strike priors but resentenced Arguilez to an indeterminate term of 25 years-to-life in prison.”	abuse of discretion	not reached	unsure The appellate court stated it had reviewed the record and found no arguable issues for reversal, effectively affirming the trial court's exercise of discretion without detailed analysis.
Denial of motion to disqualify judge as untimely “Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it denied as untimely Arguilez’s motion to disqualify the assigned judge pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6.”	abuse of discretion	not reached	unsure The appellate court listed this as a potential issue identified by counsel but concluded after independent review that no arguable issues for reversal existed.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires independent review of the record by appellate counsel when no arguable issues are found, to ensure competent representation.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to withdraw from an appeal where no arguable issues exist, requiring a brief identifying potential issues and independent court review.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it follows the standard Wende/Anders protocol for reviewing appeals where counsel finds no arguable issues. However, it provides no substantive legal analysis or reasoning for why the trial court's specific sentencing decisions were correct, relying entirely on the negative finding of error.

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

At a Penal Code section 1172.75 full resentencing in December 2024, the trial court declined to strike Arguilez's two prior strikes but reduced his indeterminate term from 75 years to life to 25 years to life, and it also denied as untimely his Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 challenge to the assigned judge. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief, Arguilez filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed (denying a companion habeas petition by separate order).

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of defendant's request to strike his prior strike convictions at the section 1172.75 resentencing (Romero motion), while reducing the indeterminate term to 25 years to life “The court declined to strike the strike priors but resentenced Arguilez to an indeterminate term of 25 years-to-life in prison.”	abuse of discretion	correct	agree with court The opinion recites that the court considered defendant's age, time served, upcoming parole hearing, and continued dangerousness, which are proper Romero/Williams factors, and the court exercised discretion by substantially reducing the sentence; nothing in the summarized record suggests the court misunderstood its discretion or relied on improper factors. The opinion, however, states no substantive reasoning and cites no sentencing authority, so agreement rests on the thin Wende record.
Denial as untimely of defendant's Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 peremptory challenge to the assigned judge “Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it denied as untimely Arguilez’s motion to disqualify the assigned judge pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6.”	abuse of discretion	correct	unsure The opinion gives no facts about when the motion was filed or why it was untimely, so the ruling cannot be independently evaluated from the opinion alone. Moreover, under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.3, subdivision (d), and People v. Hull, a ruling on a section 170.6 challenge is reviewable only by writ of mandate, not on appeal, which independently supports the conclusion that this is not an arguable appellate issue, though the court did not say so.

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 before affirming.
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 to assist the court's independent review.
missed: People v. Hull (1991) 1 Cal.4th 266 — A writ of mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.3, subdivision (d), is the exclusive means of reviewing a ruling on a section 170.6 peremptory challenge in criminal cases; the ruling is not reviewable on appeal from the judgment.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court followed the required Wende/Anders procedure, identified counsel's two potential issues, independently reviewed the record, and affirmed, which is a defensible result given the substantial sentence reduction and the limited reviewability of 170.6 rulings. The opinion is skeletal, however: it offers no analysis of either potential issue and does not note that the 170.6 ruling was reviewable only by writ under section 170.3(d) and People v. Hull.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 12/9/25 P. v. Arguilez 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, D085317

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCE211708)

DOREL LOPEZ ARGUILEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, David J. Danielsen, Judge. Affirmed. Thien Huong Tran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. I. In 2001, a jury convicted Dorel Lopez Arguilez of three counts of first degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459,460; counts 1, 2, & 4), attempted first degree robbery (§§ 211, 664; count 5), criminal threats (§ 422; count 6), and two counts of misdemeanor battery on a person (§ 242; counts 3 & 7). The court found true the allegations that Arguilez suffered two prior strike felonies (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12(a)-(d)), two prior serious felonies (§ 667(a)(1)), and three prior prison terms (§ 667(b)). He received an indeterminate term of 75 years-to-life in prison, and a determinate term of 11 years. On December 6, 2024, Arguilez received a full resentencing hearing under section 1172.75. The court acknowledged Arguilez was 65 years old, had been in prison since 2002, and has a parole hearing tentatively set for August 2026. It believed Arguilez still posed a danger to society if he were to be immediately released but did not oppose decreasing his sentence. Defense counsel requested striking Arguilez’s strike priors and the serious felony priors, arguing Arguilez no longer posed a danger to society and was no longer abusing alcohol and drugs. The court declined to strike the strike priors but resentenced Arguilez to an indeterminate term of 25 years-to-life in prison. II. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 indicating counsel found no arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks us to independently review the record for error as required by Wende. We offered Arguilez the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not done so. To assist our review, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel has identified two possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: 1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Arguilez’s motion to strike any of his strike priors.

2 2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it denied as untimely Arguilez’s motion to disqualify the assigned judge pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6. We have reviewed the record for error consistent with the directions in Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Arguilez on this appeal. Arguilez also filed a separate petition for writ of habeas corpus and we ordered this matter be considered with the appeal. (In re Arguilez, D085758.) We deny the petition by separate order. III. We affirm.

CASTILLO, J.

WE CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

IRION, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12