People v. Ailey CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D085629 · 2026-01-30 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from an order
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCE412043
Trial judge: Daniel G. Lamborn
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Joan K. Irion (author), Michele M. Castillo, Julia C. Kelety

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T03:31Z · confidence low

The trial court found Ailey in violation of probation, denied his request for reinstatement, and revoked probation, imposing a two-year state prison sentence. On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the order after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende and finding no reasonably arguable issues.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Finding of probation violation “Whether the trial court abused its discretion and was the evidence sufficient to find Ailey violated probation”	abuse of discretion	not reached	agree with court The appellate court conducted an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende and found no reasonably arguable issues for reversal, thereby affirming the trial court's finding without addressing the specific merits of the abuse of discretion claim.
Denial of request for reinstatement of probation “Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Ailey’s request for reinstatement of probation”	abuse of discretion	not reached	agree with court The appellate court conducted an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende and found no reasonably arguable issues for reversal, thereby affirming the trial court's denial of reinstatement without addressing the specific merits of the abuse of discretion claim.

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 appointed counsel to file a brief identifying any arguable issues and to request leave to withdraw, allowing the court to independently review the record.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the Wende/Anders framework for independent review when no arguable issues are identified. However, it is a summary disposition that does not engage with the specific legal arguments or evidence regarding the probation violation or reinstatement denial.

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 found Nicholas Ailey in violation of probation, denied reinstatement, revoked probation, and imposed the low term of two years in state prison with 380 days of credit. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief; the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Finding that Ailey violated the terms of his probation (failure to report, failure to prove enrollment in batterer's counseling and residential treatment) “(1) Whether the trial court abused its discretion and was the evidence sufficient to find Ailey violated probation”	unclear	correct	agree with court The opinion recites multiple alleged violations (four missed reporting dates, a missed compliance appointment, no proof of batterer's program enrollment, no proof of residential treatment enrollment) and states the court reviewed the entire record under Wende without finding arguable error. The opinion does not itself articulate the standard or analyze the evidence, so one cannot independently verify the finding from the text, though nothing in the stated facts suggests error.
Denial of Ailey's request for reinstatement of probation and revocation of probation with imposition of a two-year low-term sentence “On February 21, 2025, the court found Ailey in violation of probation, denied Ailey’s request for reinstatement of probation, and revoked probation.”	unclear	correct	agree with court Denial of reinstatement is reviewed for abuse of discretion; the court imposed the low term, and the opinion reflects a Wende review that located no arguable issue. The opinion contains no substantive analysis, so agreement rests on the described record (repeated non-reporting and non-compliance) and the absence of any identified irregularity.

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.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal frivolous may so advise the court and should identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the standard Wende/Anders procedure: counsel identified potential issues, the defendant was notified and did not file a supplemental brief, and the court states it reviewed the whole record and found no arguable issue. The result is defensible on the facts recited, but the opinion contains no substantive analysis of the sufficiency of the violation evidence or the reinstatement decision, so a reader cannot test the conclusion beyond the court's assurance.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 1/30/26 P. v. Ailey 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, D085629

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCE412043)

NICHOLAS AILEY,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Daniel G. Lamborn, Judge. Affirmed. Anna M. Jauregui-Law, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. INTRODUCTION Nicholas Ailey appeals from an order revoking probation. His appointed counsel filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders). We informed Ailey of his right to personally file a brief, and he has not responded. We find no reasonably arguable appellate issues and affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Ailey pled guilty on May 6, 2022, to assault with means likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code,1 § 245, subd. (a)(4)) and an enhancement pursuant to section 1203.097. In the plea form, Ailey admitted the victim of the assault was a person described in Family Code section 6211. On June 8, 2022, the trial court sentenced Ailey to probation for three years. The terms of probation included Ailey report to his parole officer as directed, and that he participate in a batterer’s counseling program. On September 11, 2024, Ailey’s probation officer filed a probation report alleging Ailey violated multiple conditions of his probation. The report alleged Ailey failed to report to the probation office as required on four separate occasions, and Ailey failed to report for an office compliance appointment. The probation officer stated that his attempts to contact Ailey by telephone and email were unsuccessful. Additionally, the report alleged Ailey failed to provide proof he had enrolled or completed his batterer’s counseling program. The report also alleged Ailey failed to comply with the court’s order dated March 12, 2024, that he provide proof of enrollment in a residential treatment program. For these reasons, the probation officer recommended that Ailey’s probation be revoked. On February 21, 2025, the court found Ailey in violation of probation, denied Ailey’s request for reinstatement of probation, and revoked probation. The court imposed the low term of two years in state prison, with 380 days of credits. Ailey timely appealed the order revoking his probation.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 DISCUSSION Ailey’s appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case and statement of facts, urging no grounds for reversal of the order, and asking this court to independently review the record for error. Pursuant to Anders, counsel identified the following issues to assist the court in its search of the record for error: (1) Whether the trial court abused its discretion and was the evidence sufficient to find Ailey violated probation; and (2) Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Ailey’s request for reinstatement of probation. We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Ailey in this appeal. DISPOSITION The order revoking Ailey’s probation is affirmed.

IRION, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

KELETY, J.

CASTILLO, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12