People v. Molleja CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD303714
- Trial judge
- Rachel Cano
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Truc T. Do (author), Julia C. Kelety
Analysis
The trial court denied probation and imposed a total prison term of six years, four months following a guilty plea to two counts of driving under the influence causing serious bodily injury. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record pursuant to a Wende brief, finding no arguable issues for reversal.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of probation and imposition of a six-year, four-month prison term“At the sentencing hearing, the court denied probation and imposed a total term of six years four months on each count but stayed the term for count 2 under Penal Code section 654.” | unclear | not reached | unsure The appellate court did not explicitly analyze the trial court's sentencing decision for abuse of discretion. Instead, it conducted a general independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende and found no arguable issues for reversal, thereby affirming the judgment without addressing the specific merits of the sentencing challenge identified by counsel. |
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 when counsel finds no arguable issues.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to withdraw from an appeal by filing a brief identifying arguable issues and requesting independent court review.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for reviewing appeals where counsel identifies no arguable issues. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' opinion because it fails to explicitly address the specific sentencing issue (abuse of discretion regarding the stipulated lid) that counsel identified for the court's consideration, relying instead on a general statement that no issues were found.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court accepted Molleja's guilty plea to two counts of DUI causing injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subds. (a), (b)) under an agreement with an eight-year lid, denied probation, and imposed six years four months on each count, staying count 2 under Penal Code section 654. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief identifying only a possible abuse-of-sentencing-discretion issue; the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of probation and imposition of a six-year-four-month prison term within the stipulated eight-year lid“We have independently reviewed the record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.” | abuse of discretion | correct | agree with court The sentence was below the negotiated lid, appellant admitted a .15 blood alcohol level and that one victim suffered a coma from brain injury, and nothing in the opinion suggests the court relied on improper factors or misunderstood its discretion. The only anomaly visible is the section 654 stay of count 2 despite two separate victims, which, if error, favored appellant and provides no basis for reversal on his appeal. Given the Wende posture and the court's independent review, the conclusion that no arguable issue exists is supported. |
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 must so advise the court and identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion follows the Wende/Anders procedure, recites the offense facts, procedural history, and the issue counsel flagged, and confirms independent review of the record, which is all that is required in this posture. It does not discuss the certificate-of-probable-cause question for a post-plea sentencing challenge or the section 654 stay with two victims, but neither affects the result for appellant.
Opinion
Filed 12/24/25 P. v. Molleja 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, D085400
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD303714)
JOSE TORRE MOLLEJA,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Rachel Cano, Judge. Affirmed. Anita P. Jog, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. This is an appeal following a guilty plea arising from an agreement with a stipulated “lid” on any prison sentence. Appellant Jose Torre Molleja pleaded guilty to two counts of driving under the influence causing serious bodily injury (Veh. Code, §§ 23153, subd. (a) & 23153, subd. (b)). The parties agreed any prison sentence would have a lid of eight years. At the sentencing hearing, the court denied probation and imposed a total term of six years four months on each count but stayed the term for count 2 under Penal Code section 654. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. STATEMENT OF FACTS Appellant stated the facts of the offense in his change of plea. As part of his plea agreement, on his plea form and in open court, appellant admitted that he willfully and unlawfully, while under the influence of alcohol, drove a vehicle and concurrently violated Vehicle Code section 21453, subdivision (a), and in doing so, caused great bodily injury to Kathryn R. and Preston B. He further admitted that he had a blood alcohol level of .15 at the time of the offense and that Kathryn suffered a coma due to brain injury. 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. 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 of the record, 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: Whether the sentence imposed within the stipulated “lid” was an abuse of discretion. 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 appellant on this appeal.
2 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. 3
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12