People v. Guiher CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCN424895
- Trial judge
- Brad A. Weinreb
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Julia C. Kelety (author), Joan K. Irion, Truc T. Do
Analysis
The trial court sentenced the defendant to 16 years in state prison following a guilty plea to assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury, rejecting the defendant's motion to strike prior convictions and his mitigating evidence. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, finding no reasonably arguable issues on independent review and concluding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Imposition of the upper term sentence and refusal to strike prior convictions“Likewise, Guiher has not demonstrated that the court abused its discretion in declining to strike either prior conviction. (See People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 374.)” | abuse of discretion | not reached | agree with court The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no reasonably arguable issues on independent review and concluding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 — Trial court has discretion to strike prior convictions for sentencing purposes under the Three Strikes Law.
- relied: People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367 — Appellate review of a trial court's decision to strike or not strike prior convictions is for abuse of discretion.
- relied: People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069 — A defendant who waives the right to a jury trial on aggravating factors authorizes the court to consider prior criminal history in imposing the upper term.
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Appellate counsel must independently review the record for error when filing a brief in a criminal appeal.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appellate counsel must file a brief identifying any potentially meritorious issues when they believe an appeal is frivolous.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly applies the abuse of discretion standard to the sentencing decision and the Romero motion, and it accurately cites People v. Wiley for the proposition that a defendant who waives a jury trial on aggravating factors allows the court to consider prior criminal history. The court's independent review under Wende and Anders is procedurally correct and the conclusion that no reasonably arguable issues exist is supported by the record description provided.
Guiher pleaded guilty to assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury, admitted a great bodily injury enhancement, two prior convictions, and three aggravating factors, and the trial court denied his Romero motion and imposed the 16-year maximum contemplated by the plea agreement. On a Wende appeal with a pro per supplemental brief, the Court of Appeal found the trial court considered the mitigating evidence, did not abuse its discretion in imposing the upper term or refusing to strike the priors, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Imposition of the upper term on count 1 and the maximum 16-year sentence under the plea agreement“All these aggravating factors support a conviction to the upper term.” | abuse of discretion | correct | agree with court Guiher admitted three aggravating circumstances under rules 4.421(a)(1), (a)(3), and (b)(3), which satisfies section 1170(b)(2) as amended, and the court articulated an overbalance of aggravation over mitigation. The court's reliance on parole and bail status is tied to Guiher's authorization and jury waiver, citing Wiley. The sentence matched the maximum the plea advised. The opinion does not explain that 8 years on a 2/3/4 triad reflects strike doubling, but that does not undermine the result. |
Finding that the trial court considered Guiher's mitigating evidence (treatment, sobriety, mental health efforts)“Rather, the court made clear that it did not find the mitigating facts in favor of either compelling.” | abuse of discretion | correct | agree with court The opinion recites that the court heard argument from counsel, Guiher's wife, and father on these points and expressly found them not compelling; a sentencing court may weigh mitigation and find it outweighed, and the appellate court properly declined to reweigh. |
Denial of Romero motion to strike prior convictions based on staleness and youth at time of priors“Likewise, Guiher has not demonstrated that the court abused its discretion in declining to strike either prior conviction.” | abuse of discretion | correct | agree with court Under Carmony the refusal to strike is reviewed deferentially and only an extraordinary case falls outside the spirit of the Three Strikes law; the trial court considered staleness and age and rejected them, and the record described (parole and bail status at time of offense, prior prison term) supports that exercise of discretion. |
Wende/Anders independent review of the entire record for arguable issues“Our independent review of the record pursuant to Wende and Anders has disclosed no other reasonably arguable appellate issues for reversal.” | de novo | correct | agree with court The court followed the Wende procedure, addressed the issue counsel flagged and the defendant's supplemental contentions as required, and found nothing arguable; nothing in the recited record suggests an overlooked issue. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed counsel finds no arguable issues, the Court of Appeal must independently review the record for 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. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 — Trial courts have discretion under section 1385 to strike prior strike convictions in furtherance of justice.
- relied: People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367 — A refusal to strike a prior strike is reviewed for abuse of discretion and will be upheld unless the ruling is irrational or arbitrary.
- relied: People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069 — Under section 1170(b)(3), a court may rely on certified records of conviction to find aggravating circumstances relating to the defendant's criminal history without a jury finding.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion applies the correct deferential standards, cites controlling authority, and specifically answers each of the defendant's supplemental contentions with reference to the record of the sentencing hearing. It does not explain how an 'upper term of eight years' arises from the 2/3/4 triad of section 245(a)(4) (presumably strike doubling) and offers only a bare citation to Wiley for the parole and bail factors, leaving minor gaps in an otherwise defensible result.
Opinion
Filed 12/16/25 P. v. Guiher 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, D084779
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN424895)
BRANDON SCOTT GUIHER,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Brad A. Weinreb, Judge. Affirmed. Brandon Scott Guiher, in pro. per.; and Patrick Dudley under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Brandon Scott Guiher pleaded guilty to assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code,1 § 245, subd. (a)(4); count 1) and admitted that he personally inflicted great bodily injury upon the victim (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)) and suffered two prior convictions. The court sentenced 1 Statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. him to the upper term on count 1 plus additional time for the enhancement and prior convictions, for a total term of 16 years. Guiher appealed. His appointed counsel filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 to determine whether there are any arguable issues for review. We informed Guiher of his right to personally file a supplemental brief, and he has done so. Having reviewed the specific contentions raised by Guiher in his brief as well as independently reviewing the record, we find no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On January 10, 2023, Brandon Scott Guiher was charged in an amended information with assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4); counts 1, 6) and battery with serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d); counts 2, 7) as to two different victims on two separate occasions. The amended information further alleged as to a third victim that he made a criminal threat (§ 422; count 3) and violated a criminal protective order on two occasions (§ 166, subd. (c)(1); counts 4, 5). Counts 1, 2, 3, and 6 included additional enhancements. Guiher pleaded guilty the same day to count 1 and admitted the enhancement that he personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim of count 1 (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). He also admitted that he suffered two prior convictions. (§§ 667(a)(l), 668, 1192.7(c).) Finally, he agreed that three aggravating factors were true. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 4.421(a)(1), 4.421(a)(3), 4.421(b)(3).) The court sentenced Guiher to the upper term of eight years on count 1 plus three years for the enhancement and five years for the prior convictions, for a total of 16 years in state prison.
2 On September 9, 2024, Guiher filed a motion requesting constructive filing of a notice of appeal, which this court granted. DISCUSSION As we noted, appellate counsel filed a Wende brief asking us to independently review the record for error. To assist this court in its review of the record, and in compliance with Anders, counsel identified a possible issue that counsel considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: specifically, whether pursuant to the terms of Guiher’s plea agreement, the trial court erred in imposing a 16-year prison sentence. We have exercised our discretion to independently review the record and have found no potentially meritorious issues warranting reversal on appeal. In his supplemental brief, Guiher argues the sentencing judge failed to consider the evidence he presented of mitigating factors. In particular, he states that he provided proof that he obtained anger management treatment, participated in Narcotics Anonymous, took medication for his mental health issue, lived in sober living, and took his mental health issues seriously. He further objects to being sentenced to the upper term when all but one count was dismissed and to being sentenced to an additional term based on a crime he committed more than 10 years ago when he was 18 years old.2 We have carefully considered Guiher’s specific arguments and conclude that they are not potentially meritorious issues and do not support his claim for relief. The court heard and considered argument from Guiher’s attorney, his wife, and his father about his mental health issues and all the affirmative steps he had taken to address them. It also considered defense counsel’s motion to strike the prior strike convictions for purposes of sentencing 2 We note that when the court took Guiher’s plea, it confirmed that he understood that the maximum punishment possible under the agreement was 16 years in prison, a $10,000 fine, and 3 years of parole. 3 under People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, based in part upon the staleness of the convictions and Guiher’s age at the time of the convictions. We find no support for Guiher’s contention that the court did not consider this evidence in mitigation and in support of the motion to strike. Rather, the court made clear that it did not find the mitigating facts in favor of either compelling. It based the upper term on the “overbalance” of factors in aggravation, admitted by Guiher, including that the crime involved a vulnerable victim, “[i]t was a crime with a high degree of cruelty, viciousness, and callousness,” and Guiher had served a prior prison term. Given that Guiher authorized the court to consider his prior criminal history and waived his right to a jury trial on aggravating factors, the court also appropriately considered that Guiher was on parole and out on bail at the time he committed the crime. (See People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1083–1084.) All these aggravating factors support a conviction to the upper term. Likewise, Guiher has not demonstrated that the court abused its discretion in declining to strike either prior conviction. (See People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 374.) Accordingly, the evidence does not support an implication that the court abused its discretion in imposing the maximum term of 16 years contemplated by the plea agreement. Our independent review of the record pursuant to Wende and Anders has disclosed no other reasonably arguable appellate issues for reversal. Competent counsel represented Guiher on this appeal.
4 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.
KELETY, J.
WE CONCUR:
IRION, Acting P. J.
DO, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Carmony No. S115090 · 2004-07-08
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) S045097 · 1996-06-20
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12