People v. James CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of Riverside County · No. BLF2400163
- Outcome
- affirmed — The judgment is affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Judith D. McConnell (author), Buchanan
Analysis
The trial court accepted a guilty plea to attempted possession of a synthetic cannabinoid and sentenced the defendant to three years in prison. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
Affirmance of the judgment following a Wende/Anders review“We have independently reviewed the record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.” | de novo | not reached | agree with court The court applied the standard Wende/Anders review, examining the record for any arguable issues. It found none and affirmed the judgment. The court also correctly noted that the defendant's supplemental brief raised issues not supported by the record, which cannot be considered on direct appeal. |
Rejection of defendant's supplemental brief arguments“The supplemental brief presents material not on the record in this appeal. We cannot evaluate the allegations contained in the supplemental brief for the first time on appeal.” | de novo | not reached | agree with court The court refused to consider the defendant's supplemental brief because it relied on facts not in the record. This is consistent with the rule that appellate courts review the record below, not new evidence or allegations introduced for the first time on appeal. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to file a brief identifying arguable issues and the court to independently review the record for error.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to file a brief identifying arguable issues and the court to independently review the record for error.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound. It correctly applies the Wende/Anders framework to review the record and properly rejects the defendant's supplemental brief because it relies on facts not in the record. The court's conclusion that no arguable issues exist is supported by its independent review.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe Riverside County Superior Court accepted Darren James's guilty plea to attempted possession of a synthetic cannabinoid in state prison (Pen. Code, §§ 664/4573.6, subd. (a)) with an admitted strike prior and, per the plea agreement, sentenced him to three years consecutive to his existing term. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief, James filed a supplemental brief raising matters outside the record, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Acceptance of the guilty plea and entry of judgment of conviction for attempted possession of a synthetic cannabinoid in prison, including the stipulated factual basis and potential legal-impossibility question“We have independently reviewed the record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.” | de novo | correct | unsure The court conducted Wende/Anders independent review and found no arguable issue, but it did not analyze the flagged questions of legal impossibility (whether synthetic cannabinoids fall within § 4573.6) or the adequacy of a stipulated factual basis. A negotiated plea to a reasonably related offense with a stipulated factual basis is generally valid, so the result is defensible, but the opinion gives no reasoning on these points, so I cannot confirm it. |
Imposition of a three-year prison term consecutive to the term being served, pursuant to the plea agreement“James was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement to a term of three years in prison, consecutive to the term he was currently serving.” | de novo | correct | agree with court The sentence matches the negotiated disposition; attempted violation of § 4573.6 carries half the base triad, and doubling the middle term under the Three Strikes law yields three years, so the term is lawful and agreed to by the defendant. |
Defendant's supplemental-brief claims that the conviction was illegal and that trial counsel was ineffective“The supplemental brief presents material not on the record in this appeal. We cannot evaluate the allegations contained in the supplemental brief for the first time on appeal.” | unclear | not reached | agree with court Declining to decide ineffective-assistance and related claims that depend on facts outside the appellate record is consistent with settled California practice directing such claims to habeas corpus, though the court cited no authority for this disposition. |
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 without merit should so advise the court and identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
- missed: People v. Mendoza Tello (1997) 15 Cal.4th 264 — Ineffective-assistance claims that depend on matters outside the appellate record should be raised by petition for writ of habeas corpus rather than on direct appeal.
- missed: People v. West (1970) 3 Cal.3d 595 — A defendant may validly plead guilty, as part of a plea bargain, to a reasonably related offense even if the facts would not establish that offense, which bears on counsel's flagged legal-impossibility and factual-basis issues.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court properly performed Wende/Anders review and correctly declined to address supplemental claims resting on matters outside the record, reaching a defensible affirmance of a negotiated plea and sentence. It did not, however, explain why the flagged legal-impossibility and stipulated-factual-basis issues are not arguable, nor cite the authorities governing out-of-record ineffective-assistance claims.
Opinion
Filed 2/20/26 P. v. James 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, D085865
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. BLF2400163)
DARREN L. JAMES, Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Gregory Olson,* Judge. Affirmed. Darren L. James, in pro. per.; and Mytili G. Bala, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Darren L. James was charged with being in possession of a banned synthetic cannabinoid in a state prison. He entered into a plea agreement in which he pleaded guilty to attempted possession of a synthetic cannabinoid * Retired Judge of Riverside Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. (Pen. Code,1 §§ 664/4573.6, subd. (a)). James admitted a strike prior (§ 667, subds. (b)–(i)). The parties stipulated there was a factual basis for the plea. James was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement to a term of three years in prison, consecutive to the term he was currently serving. James filed a timely notice of appeal and obtained a certificate of probable cause. 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 James the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal. James has responded by filing a supplemental brief challenging the legality of his conviction and claiming counsel was ineffective. The record in this case does not contain any challenge to the legality of the charges or the conviction. The supplemental brief presents material not on the record in this appeal. We cannot evaluate the allegations contained in the supplemental brief for the first time on appeal. Whether or not there is some basis for relief available to James it will have to be based on a complete record which is not now before us. James’s challenge will have to be presented in some other post-conviction proceeding. STATEMENT OF FACTS In his change of plea, James stated he attempted to possess a banned synthetic cannabinoid and did the things that are specified in the charges and agreed he had a prior strike.
1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 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 four possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal. 1. Whether James’s admission of guilt was to a legal impossibility. 2. Whether counsel’s stipulation furnished a factual basis for the plea. 3. Whether there are any consequences from the Legislature’s failure to pass Assembly Bill No. 2846 that should have been considered. 4. Whether the court erred in sentencing James. We have independently reviewed the record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented James on this appeal.
3 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.* WE CONCUR:
MCCONNELL, P. J.
BUCHANAN, 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. 4
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12