People v. Morales CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D086164 · 2026-01-26 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of Riverside County · No. RIF2303385
Trial judge: Joshlyn Pulliam
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed; remanded with directions to correct abstract of judgment.
Area: criminal
Panel: Julia C. Kelety (author), Laurence D. Rubin

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T03:32Z · confidence high

The trial court denied the defendant's motion for mental health diversion, accepted his guilty plea, and sentenced him to four years in prison while striking all fines and fees. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment but remanded the case with directions to correct the abstract of judgment to accurately reflect the striking of fines and fees.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of motion for mental health diversion “The court found Morales ineligible for mental health diversion because no long-term treatment plan could be identified.”	abuse of discretion	not reached	unsure The appellate court identified the issue as a potential ground for appeal but stated it had not discovered any arguable issues for reversal after independent review, implying the denial was not reversible error.
Waiver of right to challenge denial of mental health diversion “Whether Morales waived his right to challenge the court’s denial of the motion for mental health diversion when he entered his guilty plea.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The court listed this as a potential issue considered by counsel but did not provide specific reasoning or a holding on whether the waiver occurred, only that no arguable issues for reversal were found.
Correction of abstract of judgment “We will affirm the trial court’s orders, we will remand with directions to correct the abstract of judgment.”	de novo	error	agree with court The appellate court found that the abstract of judgment inaccurately reflected the sentence by listing fines and fees that the trial court had struck, necessitating a remand for correction.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to independently review the record for error when no arguable issues are identified.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires counsel to file a brief identifying potential issues and the court to independently review the record in cases where counsel finds no arguable issues.
relied: People v. Duenas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 — Establishes that courts lack authority to impose certain fines and fees and must strike or stay them if they are not authorized by statute.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it follows the Wende/Anders protocol for reviewing appeals where counsel finds no arguable issues. It correctly identifies a clerical error in the abstract of judgment and remands for correction, which is a standard and appropriate remedy for such discrepancies.

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

The Riverside County Superior Court accepted Juan Cristobal Morales's guilty plea to assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury and resisting an officer, with an admitted strike, denied his motion for mental health diversion because no long-term treatment plan could be identified, sentenced him to four years, and struck all fines and fees. On appeal appointed counsel filed a Wende brief; the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, affirmed the judgment, and remanded only to correct an abstract of judgment that erroneously listed fines and fees the trial court had struck.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of motion for mental health diversion (Pen. Code, § 1001.36) on the ground that no long-term treatment plan could be identified “The court found Morales ineligible for mental health diversion because no long-term treatment plan could be identified.”	abuse of discretion	correct	unsure Counsel framed the issue as abuse of discretion and the court, applying Wende/Anders independent review, found no arguable issue. The opinion gives no facts about the diversion hearing, the defendant's diagnosis, or whether a certificate of probable cause was obtained after the guilty plea, so there is no basis to confirm or dispute the conclusion from the opinion alone.
Judgment and four-year sentence following guilty plea with admitted strike prior “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.”	unclear	correct	unsure This is a routine Wende affirmance; the court states it independently reviewed the record and found nothing arguable, which is the procedure Wende and Anders require. Without the underlying record the conclusion cannot be independently verified, but nothing in the opinion suggests legal error.
Abstract of judgment reflecting fines and fees that the trial court had orally struck under Duenas “We discovered that the abstract of judgment does not accurately state the sentence imposed. It reflects the imposition of a variety of fines and fees.”	unclear	error (other)	agree with court The oral pronouncement of judgment controls over a conflicting abstract, and an appellate court may order correction of clerical errors in the abstract on its own motion. Remanding for correction while affirming the judgment is the correct and conventional remedy.

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 frivolous should file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
relied: People v. Duenas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 — Due process concerns about a defendant's ability to pay fines and fees; cited as the basis on which the trial court struck or stayed all fines and fees.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the Wende/Anders procedure, identifies the two issues counsel flagged, states that independent review disclosed no arguable error, and properly orders correction of the abstract to match the oral pronouncement. It offers no discussion of why the diversion ruling and plea-waiver issues lack merit, and does not mention whether a certificate of probable cause was obtained, so the result is defensible but the reasoning cannot be checked from the opinion itself.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 1/26/26 P. v. Morales 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, D086164

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. RIF2303385)

JUAN CRISTOBAL MORALES,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Joshlyn Pulliam, Judge. Affirmed; remanded with directions to correct abstract of judgment. Jake E. Stanton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearances for Plaintiff and Respondent. In January 2025, Juan Cristobal Morales pleaded guilty to assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury (Pen. Code,1 § 245, subd. (a)(4)) and 1 Statutory references are to the Penal Code. resisting or delaying a police officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1).) He also admitted a strike prior conviction (§ 667, subds. (c) &(e)). The court found Morales ineligible for mental health diversion because no long-term treatment plan could be identified. He was sentenced to a total carceral term of four years and the trial court struck all fines and fees.2 Morales 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 Morales 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, 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 when denying Morales’s motion for mental health diversion. 2. Whether Morales waived his right to challenge the court’s denial of the motion for mental health diversion when he entered his guilty plea.

2 We discovered that the abstract of judgment does not accurately state the sentence imposed. It reflects the imposition of a variety of fines and fees. The trial court struck all fines and fees pursuant to People v. Duenas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 and ordered that anything that could not be stricken be stayed. Although we will affirm the trial court’s orders, we will remand with directions to correct the abstract of judgment. 2 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 Morales on this appeal. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. The case is remanded to the trial court to correct the abstract of judgment to accurately reflect the fines and fees. When the abstract is amended, the court shall forward the amended abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

KELETY, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

RUBIN, J.

HUFFMAN, 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