People v. Spillane CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D085609 · 2026-01-27 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD300918
Trial judge: Rachel Cano
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: William S. Dato (author), Michele M. Castillo

Analysis

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

The trial court accepted a plea agreement and sentenced the defendant to 21 years and 4 months in prison for five counts of robbery with a knife, including two strike priors. 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
Selection of the middle term for the lead charge “Whether the court erred in selecting the middle term in prison for the lead charge.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The court identified this as a potential issue raised by counsel but stated it had not identified any arguable issues for reversal after independent review.
Failure to strike both strike priors “Whether the court erred by failing to strike both strike priors.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The court identified this as a potential issue raised by counsel but stated it had not identified any arguable issues for reversal after independent review.

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 identifying no arguable issues.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires counsel to identify potential issues and the court to independently review the record to ensure no arguable issues are overlooked.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound in its adherence to Wende and Anders requirements for independent review. However, it provides no substantive legal analysis for the two specific issues identified by counsel, merely stating that no arguable issues were found.

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 trial court accepted Spillane's guilty plea to five counts of knife-armed robbery with admissions of two serious felony priors and two strike priors under a court-only agreement (prosecutor did not join) promising a sentence between 16 and 25 years, and imposed a determinate term of 21 years four months. On appeal, counsel filed a Wende brief identifying two possible sentencing issues; the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Selection of the middle term for the lead robbery count “1. Whether the court erred in selecting the middle term in prison for the lead charge.”	unclear	correct	agree with court Under Wende/Anders the court conducted an independent record review and found no arguable issue. A trial court's selection of the middle term is a discretionary sentencing choice ordinarily reviewed for abuse of discretion; nothing in the opinion suggests the court relied on improper factors, and the sentence fell within the 16–25 year range Spillane agreed to with the court. The opinion gives no analysis, so the conclusion cannot be independently verified from the text, but there is no indication of error.
Refusal to strike both strike priors (striking only one) “2. Whether the court erred by failing to strike both strike priors.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The determinate 21-year-4-month sentence indicates the trial court exercised Romero discretion to strike at least one strike while declining to strike both. Such a decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion and is rarely reversible where the defendant pleaded to five armed robberies with two prior serious felonies. The Court of Appeal's Wende review found no arguable issue; nothing in the opinion suggests the trial court misunderstood its discretion or relied on impermissible factors. The result is consistent with the agreed sentencing range.

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 no meritorious issues must file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal to assist the court's review.
missed: People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 — A Wende opinion should include a brief description of the facts and procedural history, the crimes of which the defendant was convicted, and the punishment imposed, and should address any contentions raised by the defendant personally; the court expressly declined to set forth any statement of facts and did not cite Kelly.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the Wende/Anders procedure, identifies counsel's two potential sentencing issues, and reasonably concludes there is no arguable error from a plea to five armed robberies with a sentence within the agreed range. It omits any statement of facts despite Kelly's guidance and provides no reasoning on the Romero and middle-term questions, so the result is defensible but the opinion is conclusory.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 1/27/26 P. v. Spillane 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, D085609

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD300918)

DYLAN M. SPILLANE, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Rachel Cano, Judge. Affirmed. Joshua Peter Visco, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Dylan M. Spillane was charged with five counts of robbery with the use of a knife (Pen. Code,1 §§ 211 & 12022, subd. (b)(1)). It was also alleged he had two serious felony prior convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)) and two strike priors (§ 667, subds. (b)–(i)).

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code. Spillane entered into an agreement with the court in which the prosecutor did not join. Spillane agreed to plead guilty to all charges and admit all allegations. The court agreed to impose a sentence between 16 and 25 years in prison. The court ultimately sentenced Spillane to a determinate term of 21 years four months in prison. Spillane filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 indicating that 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 Spillane the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. Since this appeal arises from a plea agreement we find it unnecessary to set forth a statement of facts in this opinion. 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 which were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal. 1. Whether the court erred in selecting the middle term in prison for the lead charge. 2. Whether the court erred by failing to strike both strike priors. We have independently reviewed the record for error as required by Wende and Anders. We have not identified any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Spillane on this appeal.

2 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.* WE CONCUR:

DATO, Acting P. J.

CASTILLO, 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