People v. Rager CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCN441511
- Trial judge
- Robert J. Kearney
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Truc T. Do (author), Michele M. Castillo
Analysis
The trial court denied the defendant's Marsden motion to replace counsel and accepted his guilty pleas to arson and misdemeanor driving under the influence, resulting in a sentence of one year, four months for arson and 180 days for DUI. On appeal, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of Marsden motion to replace counsel“In October 2024, Rager made a motion to replace counsel. (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.) The court held a hearing and denied the motion.” | unclear | not reached | unsure The appellate court noted that counsel identified this as a potential issue but stated, 'We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.' The opinion does not provide specific reasoning or a standard of review for why the denial was correct, only that the independent review found no error. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 — Establishes the procedure for a defendant to request replacement of appointed counsel.
- 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 when counsel finds no issues.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires independent review of the record by the appellate court when appointed counsel files a no-merit brief.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it follows the mandatory Wende/Anders protocol for no-merit appeals. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' analysis because it fails to provide any specific reasoning or legal analysis for why the identified potential issues (Marsden denial and extradition procedures) were not arguable, relying solely on the conclusion that no error was found.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court denied Rager's Marsden motion, accepted his guilty pleas to arson and misdemeanor DUI, struck the strike prior, and sentenced him to one year four months with custody credits exceeding the term. On appeal, counsel filed a Wende brief identifying two possible issues (Interstate Agreement on Detainers compliance and the Marsden denial), the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of Rager's Marsden motion to replace appointed counsel“In October 2024, Rager made a motion to replace counsel. (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.) The court held a hearing and denied the motion.” | unclear | correct | unsure The opinion recites that a Marsden hearing was held and the motion denied, and states that independent review disclosed no arguable issue. It does not describe the substance of the hearing or state the abuse-of-discretion standard, so the reader cannot independently verify the conclusion, though nothing in the opinion suggests error. |
Extradition of Rager from Nevada and compliance with Interstate Agreement on Detainers procedures“Whether proper procedures were followed under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers in the process of extraditing Rager from Nevada.” | unclear | correct | unsure Counsel flagged this as a possible Anders issue and the court found no arguable issue after independent review. The opinion contains no facts about the extradition process, and Rager pleaded guilty and waived time, so the result is plausible but unverifiable from the opinion. |
Acceptance of guilty pleas and imposition of sentence of one year four months with custody credits and no fines or fees“The strike prior was stricken, and the court sentenced Rager to one year, four months for arson with credit for 793 days custody credits.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The sentence is lenient (strike stricken, credits exceed the term, no fines or fees), and independent Wende review found no error. Nothing in the opinion indicates any defect in the plea or sentence. |
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 frivolous must file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal to assist the court's review.
- relied: People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 — A defendant seeking substitution of appointed counsel must be given an opportunity to state the reasons, and the court must inquire into the complaints before ruling.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the standard Wende/Anders procedure: counsel identified possible issues, the defendant was invited to file a supplemental brief and did not, and the court states it independently reviewed the record and found no arguable issue. The result is defensible and procedurally proper, but the opinion gives no factual detail about the Marsden hearing or extradition, so its conclusions cannot be checked against the record.
Opinion
Filed 3/23/26 P. v. Rager 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, D085622
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN441511)
GREGORY RAGER,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Robert J. Kearney, Judge. Affirmed. Jeanine G. Strong, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Gregory Rager was charged in San Diego County with arson (Pen. Code, § 451, subd. (d)) and misdemeanor driving under the influence (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (f)). Rager was arraigned on both charges. On March 7, 2024, Rager failed to appear at an arraignment hearing, and a bench warrant was issued. Rager was extradited from Las Vegas, Nevada. Rager was arraigned in San Diego and waived time for trial. In October 2024, Rager made a motion to replace counsel. (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.) The court held a hearing and denied the motion. In November 2024, Rager pleaded guilty to one count of arson and pleaded guilty to misdemeanor driving under the influence. The strike prior was stricken, and the court sentenced Rager to one year, four months for arson with credit for 793 days custody credits. The court sentenced Rager to 180 days for misdemeanor driving under the influence with credit for 215 days. No fines or fees were imposed. Rager filed a timely notice of appeal and obtained a certificate of probable cause from the trial court. Appellate counsel has filed a brief in accordance with 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 Rager the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. We will not include a statement of facts since this appeal arises from guilty pleas.
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 two possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: 1. Whether proper procedures were followed under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers in the process of extraditing Rager from Nevada. 2. Whether the trial court erred in denying Rager’s Marsden motion. 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 Rager on this appeal. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.
3 HUFFMAN, J.* WE CONCUR:
DO, 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. 4
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12
- People v. Marsden Crim. 14119 · 1970-02-26