People v. Vanvoorhis CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Bernardino County · No. FVI19003316
- Trial judge
- Shannon Faherty
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Truc T. Do (author), Laurence D. Rubin
Analysis
The trial court declined to strike the defendant's serious felony prior convictions under Penal Code section 1385, finding they posed a grave risk of harm, and reimposed the original sentence. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
Trial court's refusal to strike serious felony prior convictions under Penal Code section 1385 and reimposition of the original sentence.“The court declined to strike the serious felony prior convictions and found that striking the priors would pose a grave risk of harm to the public. The court reimposed the original sentence.” | unclear | not reached | unsure The appellate court conducted an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende and Anders v. California but did not explicitly analyze the trial court's ruling on the merits or state a standard of review for the discretionary decision to strike priors. It simply concluded that no arguable issues for reversal were found. |
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 independent review of the record by the court when counsel files a brief stating no arguable issues exist.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound in following the Wende/Anders protocol for independent review. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' opinion because it fails to articulate the standard of review or provide any substantive legal analysis regarding the trial court's exercise of discretion under section 1385, merely stating that no arguable issues were found without explaining why the trial court's finding of 'grave risk' was not erroneous.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual disposition unusual dispositionOn remand for resentencing under amended Penal Code section 1385, the trial court declined to strike Vanvoorhis's three serious felony prior convictions, finding that dismissal would pose a grave risk of harm to the public, and reimposed the original sentence of 25 years to life plus 15 years. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief, Vanvoorhis 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
Refusal at resentencing to dismiss the three serious felony prior enhancements under Penal Code section 1385, based on a finding that dismissal would endanger public safety, and reimposition of the original sentence“The court declined to strike the serious felony prior convictions and found that striking the priors would pose a grave risk of harm to the public. The court reimposed the original sentence.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The opinion does not state a standard of review; it conducts an independent Wende/Anders review and identifies the section 1385 ruling as the only possible issue counsel flagged. A court may decline to dismiss an enhancement under section 1385, subdivision (c)(2) if it finds dismissal would endanger public safety, and the trial court made that finding here. The opinion recites no facts underlying the finding, so I cannot independently verify it, but nothing in the opinion suggests legal error, and a Wende affirmance is the standard disposition when no arguable issue appears. |
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 before affirming.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal lacks merit should file a brief identifying anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal to assist the court's review.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion follows the standard Wende/Anders procedure: counsel identified the section 1385 ruling as a possible issue, the defendant was offered and declined the chance to file his own brief, and the court independently reviewed the record and found nothing arguable. It is brief and does not state the standard of review or the facts supporting the public-safety finding, but a Wende opinion is not required to do more when no contentions are raised, so the result is defensible.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
record incompleteOpinion
Filed 3/20/26 P. v. Vanvoorhis 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, D085331
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. FVI19003316)
WARREN VANVOORHIS,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, Shannon Faherty, Judge. Affirmed. Michael C. Sampson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In 2022, a jury convicted Warren Vanvoorhis of assault with intent to commit rape (Pen. Code,1 § 220, subd. (a)(1)). It was also determined that Vanvoorhis had three serious felony prior convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)) and three strike priors (§ 667, subd. (b)–(i)).
1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. Vanvoorhis was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 25 years to life consecutive to a 15-year term for serious felony priors. Vanvoorhis appealed and this court affirmed the convictions but remanded the matter for resentencing in light of the amendments to section 1385. (People v. Vanvoorhis (Jan. 10, 2024, D082210) [nonpub. opn.].) The court held a resentencing hearing. The court declined to strike the serious felony prior convictions and found that striking the priors would pose a grave risk of harm to the public. The court reimposed the original sentence. Vanvoorhis 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 Vanvoorhis the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. We discussed the facts of the offenses in our previous appeal. We will not repeat that discussion 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 failing to dismiss the serious felony priors under section 1385. 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 Vanvoorhis on this appeal. DISPOSITION 2 The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.* WE CONCUR:
DO, Acting P. J.
RUBIN, 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