People v. Umathum CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of Riverside County · No. SWF2201063
- Trial judge
- Stephen J. Gallon
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Judith D. McConnell (author), O'Rourke
Analysis
The trial court accepted a guilty plea and imposed a stipulated sentence of 27 years and four months for vehicular manslaughter and DUI. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende found no arguable issues for reversal.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Imposition of the stipulated sentence of 27 years and four months following a guilty plea.“The parties agreed the aggregate sentence for both counts and allegations would be a determinate term of 27 years four months, which the court ultimately imposed.” | unclear | not reached | unsure The appellate court did not explicitly rule on the legality of the sentence because it was a Wende appeal where counsel identified no arguable issues. The court stated it independently reviewed the record and found no error, implying the sentence was valid, but did not provide specific legal analysis regarding the plea agreement's compliance. |
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.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to withdraw from a case where no arguable issues exist, requiring a brief identifying potential issues and an independent court review.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for a Wende appeal, stating that counsel filed a brief and the court conducted an independent review. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' assessment because it provides no substantive legal analysis or reasoning for why the sentence or plea was valid, relying solely on the negative finding of 'no arguable issues.'
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe Riverside County Superior Court accepted Kristen Corrine Umathum's guilty plea to gross vehicular manslaughter (Pen. Code, § 191.5, subd. (a)) and DUI causing injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (f)) with a great bodily injury admission, and imposed the stipulated determinate term of 27 years four months. On appeal, counsel filed a Wende brief identifying only whether the sentence conformed to the plea agreement; the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Imposition of the stipulated 27-year-four-month determinate sentence pursuant to the plea agreement“We have independently reviewed the record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The opinion states the parties agreed to an aggregate term of 27 years four months and the court imposed exactly that term. Nothing in the opinion suggests any deviation from the bargain or other sentencing irregularity, and the court performed the independent record review Wende and Anders require. On this record there is no basis to disagree. |
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 to be without merit must so advise the court and refer to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
The appellate opinion: sound — The court followed the Wende/Anders procedure, noted the issue counsel flagged, confirmed the imposed sentence matched the stipulated term, and gave the defendant an opportunity to file a supplemental brief. The opinion is brief, as is typical of Wende affirmances, and does not mention whether a certificate of probable cause was obtained for an appeal following a plea, but nothing indicates that omission affected the result.
Opinion
Filed 12/19/25 P. v. Umathum 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, D085708
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SWF2201063)
KRISTEN CORRINE UMATHUM,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Stephen J. Gallon, Judge. Affirmed. Siri Shetty, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. This appeal is from a judgment following a guilty plea. Kristen Corrine Umathum entered into a plea agreement with a stipulated sentence. Umathum pleaded guilty to one count of vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence (Pen. Code, § 191.5, subd. (a); count 2), one count of driving under the influence of a controlled substance (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (f); count 3) and admitted the great bodily injury allegation (Pen. Code, § 12022.7, subd. (a)). The parties agreed the aggregate sentence for both counts and allegations would be a determinate term of 27 years four months, which the court ultimately imposed. Umathum filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 indicating appellate 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 Umathum the opportunity to file her own brief on appeal, but she has not responded. STATEMENT OF FACTS Since this appeal is from a judgment following a guilty plea, a summary of the factual basis will suffice. At approximately 9:50 p.m. on December 19, 2020, a truck driven by Umathum collided head-on with a car driven by E.F. E.F. sustained severe injuries , and her eight-year-old son Z.F., who had been sitting in the back seat, was later pronounced dead. 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 possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Did the court sentence Umathum in accordance with the plea agreement?
2 We have independently reviewed the record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Umathum 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. 3
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12