People v. Garcia CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D084940 · 2025-12-29 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of Riverside County · No. INF1700208
Trial judge: John J. Ryan (retired judge)
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Julia C. Kelety (author), Laurence D. Rubin

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T03:33Z · confidence low

The trial court resentenced Garcia to 15 years to life for second-degree murder and a concurrent six years, four months for DUI causing great bodily injury, denying probation but ordering a diagnostic study. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent Wende review found no arguable issues for reversal.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of probation “Whether the court abused its discretion in denying Garcia’s request for probation.”	abuse of discretion	not reached	agree with court The court identified the issue as a potential ground for appeal but concluded after independent review that it did not constitute an arguable issue for reversal, effectively affirming the trial court's decision without detailed analysis.
Resentencing “The court sentenced Garcia to an indeterminate term of 15 years to life for second degree murder (count 1) and a concurrent term of six years four months for count 2”	abuse of discretion	not reached	agree with court The court affirmed the judgment following a Wende review, finding no arguable issues regarding the sentence imposed on remand.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires independent review of the record by appellate counsel and the court when counsel finds no arguable issues.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to withdraw from a criminal appeal after identifying no arguable issues.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it follows the required Wende/Anders protocol for indigent appeals where counsel identifies no issues. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' opinion because it fails to provide any substantive legal analysis or reasoning for why the identified issue (probation denial) was not arguable, relying solely on the conclusion of the independent review.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:29Z · confidence low

On remand after a prior appeal, the Riverside County Superior Court ordered a section 1203.03 diagnostic study, denied probation, and resentenced Robert Garcia Jr. to 15 years to life for second degree murder with a concurrent six-year-four-month term for DUI causing great bodily injury. Appellate counsel filed a Wende brief; the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of Garcia's request for probation at resentencing following a section 1203.03 diagnostic study “Whether the court abused its discretion in denying Garcia’s request for probation.”	abuse of discretion	correct	unsure The opinion identifies the probation denial as the only potential issue flagged under Anders and states that after independent Wende review no arguable issue exists. The opinion contains no description of the diagnostic report, the court's reasons, or the probation eligibility analysis, so the conclusion cannot be independently verified from the opinion alone, though nothing in it suggests error.
Imposition of 15 years to life on count 1 and concurrent six years four months on count 2 at resentencing “The court sentenced Garcia to an indeterminate term of 15 years to life for second degree murder (count 1) and a concurrent term of six years four months for count 2”	unclear	correct	unsure The 15-to-life term is the statutory sentence for second degree murder, and the determinate count 2 term was reduced from the original sentence and run concurrently. The opinion gives no detail on how the six-year-four-month figure was computed, so the correctness of the determinate term cannot be confirmed from the opinion itself.

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.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous should file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the standard Wende/Anders procedure, identifies the single potential issue counsel raised, and states that independent review disclosed no arguable error. It provides no substantive analysis of the probation denial or the determinate term, which is typical of a Wende affirmance but leaves the reasoning unverifiable from the opinion alone.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 12/29/25 P. v. Garcia 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, D084940

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. INF1700208)

ROBERT GARCIA, JR., Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside County, John J. Ryan, Judge. (Retired Judge of Orange Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed. Christine M. Aros, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2021, a jury convicted Robert Garcia Jr. of second degree murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187, subd. (a)) arising out of drunk driving and one count of driving under the influence of alcohol causing great bodily injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (e)). The court denied Garcia’s request for probation or at 1 Statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. least a diagnostic study (§ 1203.03). Garcia was sentenced to prison for a term of 15 years to life on count 1 and a concurrent determinate term of seven years on count 2. Garcia appealed. This court affirmed the convictions but remanded the case for resentencing. (People v. Garcia (Jan. 30, 2023, D080080) [nonpub. opn.].) On remand, the trial court ordered a diagnostic study for Garcia under section 1203.03. The court thereafter received a report of the study and held a resentencing hearing. The court sentenced Garcia to an indeterminate term of 15 years to life for second degree murder (count 1) and a concurrent term of six years four months for count 2, driving under the influence of alcohol with great bodily injury. Garcia 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 Garcia the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. The facts surrounding the offenses in this case were adequately discussed in our earlier appeal, we will not discuss the facts in this opinion. We have, however, granted Garcia’s request to take judicial notice of the file in People v. Garcia, supra, D080080. 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, 2 counsel has identified a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Whether the court abused its discretion in denying Garcia’s request for probation. 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 Garcia on this appeal. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J. WE CONCUR:

KELETY, Acting P. J.

RUBIN, 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