People v. Mueller CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCN422071
- Trial judges
- Daniel F. Link; Brad A. Weinreb
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- O'Rourke (author), Michele M. Castillo
Analysis
The trial court revoked Mueller's probation following a contested hearing where he admitted to elder abuse and resisting arrest, executing his previously stayed five-year prison sentence. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
Revocation of probation and execution of the five-year prison term“Whether the trial court abused its discretion in terminating probation and executing the five-year term previously imposed.” | 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 analyze the specific issue identified by counsel in depth. |
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 conduct an independent review of the record in cases where counsel finds no arguable issues.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for independent review when counsel identifies no issues. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' opinion because it fails to provide any substantive legal analysis or reasoning for affirming the probation revocation, merely stating that no errors were found.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court, after a contested hearing in February 2025, found Mueller in violation of probation for a third time (following his arrest for elder abuse and resisting police), revoked probation, and executed the previously imposed and stayed five-year prison term. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief identifying only a possible abuse-of-discretion issue; Mueller filed no supplemental brief; and the Court of Appeal, after independent review of the record, found no arguable issues and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Revocation and termination of probation and execution of the previously imposed, stayed five-year prison sentence following a contested violation hearing.“in terminating probation and executing the five-year term previously imposed.” | abuse of discretion | correct | agree with court The opinion recites that this was Mueller's third probation violation, that the final violation was found after a contested hearing, and that it involved an arrest for elder abuse at his mother's home plus resisting officers. On that record, revoking probation and executing a sentence that had already been imposed with execution stayed is well within the trial court's discretion, and nothing in the opinion suggests a procedural defect in the hearing. The appellate court applied the correct Wende/Anders framework for a first appeal from a judgment and found no arguable issue; the opinion's sparse factual recitation, however, limits how much can be independently verified. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel finds no arguable issues, counsel may file a brief so stating and 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 lacks merit must so advise the court and may identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal to assist the court's independent review.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court correctly applied the Wende/Anders procedure to a first appeal from a judgment entered on probation revocation, invited a supplemental brief from the defendant, and conducted independent review before affirming. The opinion is extremely brief and does not describe the evidence at the contested revocation hearing or the court's stated reasons for executing the sentence, so the result is defensible but the explanation is thin.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
record incompleteOpinion
Filed 3/6/26 P. v. Mueller 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, D085760
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN422071)
PATRICK S. MUELLER, Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Brad A. Weinreb and Daniel F. Link, Judges. Affirmed. Ryan Peabody, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
This is an appeal following revocation of probation. In 2021, Patrick S. Mueller pleaded guilty to felony drunk driving causing bodily injury to another (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a)). Mueller admitted personally inflicting great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 12022.7, subd. (a)). Mueller also admitted a prior conviction for driving under the influence (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (b)). Mueller was sentenced to a five- year term in prison, with the execution of sentence stayed. Mueller was granted probation for five years subject to 180 days in custody. In May 2023, Mueller admitted violating probation by driving on a suspended license. The court revoked probation and then reinstated Mueller to probation on the original conditions. In October 2024, Mueller again admitted violating probation and the court revoked and reinstated his probation conditions. The final revocation of probation occurred in February 2025 after a contested hearing. Mueller was arrested for elder abuse (Pen. Code, § 368, subd. (b)(1)) which occurred at his mother’s house. Mueller also resisted the police and had to be subdued and taken into custody. Mueller 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 for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Mueller 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 a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Whether the trial court abused its discretion in terminating probation and executing the five-year term previously imposed.
2 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 Mueller on this appeal. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.* WE CONCUR:
O’ROURKE, 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