People v. Palmer CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D085700 · 2026-02-24 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD292521
Trial judge: Albert T. Harutunian III
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Julia C. Kelety (author), Michele M. Castillo

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T03:30Z · confidence low

The trial court resentenced the defendant to a subordinate term of three years to be served consecutively to a sentence in a new case. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Resentencing to a subordinate term “In 2025, the trial court resentenced Palmer to make his sentence a subordinate term of three years to be served consecutively to a 12-year eight-month term in a new case.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The appellate court conducted an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende and found no arguable issues for reversal. The court did not explicitly analyze the legal merits of the subordinate term ruling, relying instead on the absence of identified errors in the record.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appellate counsel to file a brief identifying arguable issues and the court to independently review the record for error when counsel finds none.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires independent review of the record by the appellate court when appointed counsel files a brief stating there are no arguable issues.

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 issues. However, it provides no substantive legal analysis of the specific sentencing issue (subordinate term) that counsel flagged, relying solely on the court's independent review finding no error.

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

In 2025 the San Diego Superior Court resentenced Frederick Palmer, making his previously imposed sentence for assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury and battery with serious bodily injury a three-year subordinate term consecutive to a 12-year eight-month term in a new case. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief, Palmer 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
Resentencing of Palmer's 2022 convictions to a three-year subordinate term to run consecutively to a 12-year eight-month term imposed in a new case “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	agree with court The court followed the standard Wende/Anders procedure: counsel identified the subordinate-term issue, the defendant was invited to brief but did not, and the panel conducted an independent review and found no arguable issue. When a defendant already serving a sentence is sentenced consecutively in a new case, Penal Code section 1170.1 and rule 4.452 contemplate restructuring into a single aggregate term with the new principal term, so designating the earlier sentence as a subordinate term is consistent with that scheme on the face of the opinion. The opinion gives no record detail about the resentencing itself, so I cannot independently verify the computation, but nothing in the opinion suggests legal error.

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 to determine whether any arguable issue exists.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous should so advise the court and file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion applies the correct Wende/Anders framework, notes the one potential issue counsel identified, and reports an independent review with no arguable issues, which is a defensible disposition. It does not, however, explain why the subordinate-term designation was proper or address whether Wende independent review was required for an appeal from a resentencing in light of People v. Delgadillo, though conducting the review anyway caused no prejudice.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 2/24/26 P. v. Palmer 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, D085700

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD292521)

FREDERICK J. PALMER, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Albert T. Harutunian III, Judge. Affirmed. Richard Jay Moller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In 2022, a jury convicted Frederick J. Palmer of assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury (Pen. Code,1 § 245, subd. (a)(4)) and battery with serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d)) and found he personally inflicted great bodily injury as to each count (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). The court 1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code. found Palmer had suffered a serious felony prior and a strike prior (§§ 667, subd. (a) & 667, subds. (b)–(i)). Palmer was sentenced to a total term of nine years in prison. Palmer appealed and this court affirmed the judgment and sentence. (People v. Palmer (Oct. 6, 2023, D081426) [nonpub. opn.].) In 2025, the trial court resentenced Palmer to make his sentence a subordinate term of three years to be served consecutively to a 12-year eight-month term in a new case. Palmer 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 as mandated by Wende. We offered Palmer the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. We discussed the facts of the case in our earlier opinion. There is no need to repeat them here. 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 a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Whether the trial court erred in making the sentence in this case to be a subordinate term to the sentence in a new case. 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 Palmer on this appeal.

2 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.* WE CONCUR:

KELETY, 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