People v. Gaono CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCN222540
- Trial judge
- Peter C. Deddeh
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Julia C. Kelety (author), Judith D. McConnell, O'Rourke
Analysis
The trial court resentenced the defendant to life without the possibility of parole plus 51 years, retaining firearm enhancements under Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (d). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, finding no arguable issues for reversal.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Retention of firearm enhancements under Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (d) during resentencing“counsel has identified one possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal, namely whether the sentencing court abused its discretion in refusing to strike, dismiss, or vacate the section 12022.53, subdivision (d) enhancements attached to counts 1 and 2.” | abuse of discretion | not reached | unsure The appellate court stated it independently reviewed the record and found no arguable issues for reversal, effectively declining to address the specific discretionary argument raised by counsel in the Wende brief. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires independent review of the record by the appellate court when appointed counsel files a brief stating no arguable issues exist.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to file a brief identifying potential issues and the court to independently review the record to ensure the appeal is not frivolous.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for handling appeals where counsel identifies no arguable issues. However, it provides no substantive legal analysis or reasoning for why the specific issue of enhancement retention was not arguable, relying solely on the court's independent review.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionOn resentencing after a habeas grant and a Welfare and Institutions Code section 707 transfer hearing, the superior court sentenced Gaono to life without parole plus 51 years, declining to strike the Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (d) firearm enhancements on counts 1 and 2. Appellate counsel filed a Wende brief, Gaono filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Refusal to strike, dismiss, or vacate the section 12022.53, subdivision (d) firearm enhancements on counts 1 and 2 at resentencing“whether the sentencing court abused its discretion in refusing to strike, dismiss, or vacate the section 12022.53, subdivision (d) enhancements attached to counts 1 and 2.” | abuse of discretion | correct | unsure The opinion identifies this as the sole Anders issue but gives no account of the sentencing court's reasons, the section 1385 factors considered, or the record of the hearing; it simply states that independent review disclosed no arguable issue. Without any description of the trial court's reasoning, the result cannot be independently verified from the opinion, though nothing in it suggests error. |
Judgment on resentencing (LWOP plus 25 years to life on count 1; six years plus 20 years on count 2), reviewed under Wende/Anders independent review“We have independently reviewed the entire record for error as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.” | unclear | correct | unsure The court followed the Wende procedure: counsel filed a no-issue brief, the defendant was offered and declined the chance to file his own brief, and the court states it independently reviewed the entire record. Because no supplemental brief was filed, the court was not required to explain why particular contentions fail, so the opinion's brevity is procedurally proper, but it provides no basis to evaluate whether juvenile-LWOP sentencing requirements were satisfied. |
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 arguable error before affirming.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous may so advise the court and request to withdraw, accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
- missed: People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354 — A court sentencing a juvenile offender to life without parole under Penal Code section 190.5, subdivision (b) must consider the Miller v. Alabama youth-related factors and may not apply a presumption in favor of LWOP; the opinion does not indicate whether this was considered at the 2025 resentencing of a defendant whose case was certified to juvenile court.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion correctly applies the Wende/Anders procedure and, since the defendant filed no supplemental brief, was not obligated to discuss specific contentions. It nonetheless says nothing about how the sentencing court exercised discretion on the enhancements or whether the juvenile-LWOP requirements of Gutierrez were addressed, leaving the reader unable to verify the result from the opinion itself.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
record incompleteOpinion
Filed 1/26/26 P. v. Gaono 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, D085614
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SCN222540) v.
MEKI GAONO,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Peter C. Deddeh, Judge. Affirmed. Laura Beth Arnold, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2009, a jury found Meki Gaono guilty of the premeditated murder of a police officer (count 1) and the assault of a second police officer with a firearm (count 2), with gang and firearm enhancements found true as to both counts. He was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole plus an additional 61 years to life on the enhancements. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. In 2016 Gaono successfully petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, and his sentence was vacated. Thereafter his case was certified to juvenile court for a hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 707. After the hearing, the juvenile court transferred the matter to the adult criminal court of the Superior Court for resentencing.1 On February 11, 2025, as to count 1, Gaono was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole, together with an indeterminate term of 25 years to life on the murder count for the gun enhancement under section 12022.53, subdivision (d). As to count 2, the court sentenced Gaono to the middle term of six years, together with a determinate term of 20 years for the section 12022.53, subdivision (d) enhancement, resulting in a total sentence of 51 years plus life without the possibility of parole.2 Gaono filed a timely notice of appeal of the resentencing. 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 Gaono 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 one possible issue that was considered in evaluating 1 Gaono separately appealed the order transferring his case from the juvenile court to criminal court. Our court affirmed the order in an unpublished opinion, People v. Meki G., D085507 (Nov. 18, 2025).
2 Notwithstanding the sentence, Gaono will be entitled to a “Youth Offender” parole hearing under Penal Code sections 3051 and 4801 after he has served 25 years of his sentence.
2 the potential merits of this appeal, namely whether the sentencing court abused its discretion in refusing to strike, dismiss, or vacate the section 12022.53, subdivision (d) enhancements attached to counts 1 and 2. We have independently reviewed the entire record for error as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Gaono on this appeal. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.
KELETY, J.
WE CONCUR:
MCCONNELL, P. J.
O’ROURKE, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12