People v. Magana CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D086599 · 2026-04-22 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Bernardino County · No. FWV22001746
Trial judge: Michael A. Camber
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Judith D. McConnell (author), Julia C. Kelety

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T03:26Z · confidence low

The trial court denied Magana's motion to withdraw his guilty plea and sentenced him to 22 years in prison pursuant to a plea agreement. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record under People v. Wende, finding no arguable issues for reversal.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea “Whether the trial court erred in denying Magana’s motion to withdraw his plea.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The appellate court listed this as a potential issue for its independent review but concluded it did not discover any arguable issues for reversal, effectively finding no error without detailed analysis.
Denial of motion to replace appointed counsel “Whether the court erred in denying Magana’s motion to replace appointed counsel under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 218.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The court identified this as a potential issue but found no arguable error during its independent review, implying the trial court's discretion was not abused or the issue was not viable.
Imposition of upper term for count 5 “Whether the court erred in imposing the upper term for count 5.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The court considered this potential issue but found no arguable error, likely because the sentence was stipulated in the plea agreement, which generally precludes challenge to the specific term if the agreement was valid.
Order to pay restitution “Whether the court erred in ordering Magana to pay restitution.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The court listed this as a potential issue but found no arguable error, suggesting the restitution order was supported by the record or the plea agreement.

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 stating no arguable issues exist.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires counsel to identify potentially meritorious issues and the court to independently review the record when counsel believes the appeal is frivolous.
relied: People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 218 — Establishes the standard for replacing appointed counsel based on a conflict of interest or breakdown in the attorney-client relationship.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is a standard Wende/Anders review where the court independently examined the record and found no arguable issues. It is procedurally correct but lacks substantive legal analysis because no issues were deemed arguable.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:05Z · confidence low

The trial court accepted Magana's guilty plea to two forcible sex offenses against a child under 14 pursuant to a plea agreement with a stipulated 22-year sentence, denied his motion to withdraw the plea and his Marsden motion, imposed the agreed term including an upper term on count 5, ordered restitution, and denied a certificate of probable cause. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief; the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of Magana's motion to withdraw his guilty plea “Magana’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea was denied and he was sentenced to the agreed term of 22 years in prison.”	unclear	correct	unsure The court conducted only a Wende/Anders independent review and found no arguable issue; it did not discuss the facts or the grounds for the motion. Because the trial court denied a certificate of probable cause, a challenge to the plea's validity would in any event be barred under Penal Code section 1237.5, which supports the result but is not stated in the opinion.
Denial of Magana's Marsden motion to replace appointed counsel “Whether the court erred in denying Magana’s motion to replace appointed counsel under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 218.”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion identifies the Marsden issue as one counsel considered but gives no description of the hearing or the trial court's reasoning; the appellate court simply reports that its independent review disclosed no arguable error. Nothing in the opinion permits independent verification.
Imposition of the upper term on count 5 “Whether the court erred in imposing the upper term for count 5.”	unclear	correct	unsure The sentence was a stipulated 22-year term agreed to in the plea bargain, and no certificate of probable cause issued, so a challenge to the upper term as part of the negotiated sentence would likely be non-cognizable; the court nonetheless gives no analysis and relies on Wende review alone.
Order that Magana pay restitution “Whether the court erred in ordering Magana to pay restitution.”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion states no facts about the restitution order (amount, basis, or objection) and resolves the issue only through the general statement that independent review found no arguable issue.

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 — Counsel who finds an appeal lacking in merit 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 218 — A defendant seeking substitution of appointed counsel must be permitted 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 procedure, lists the issues counsel considered, and states that independent review found no arguable error, which is all that Wende requires. It does not, however, note that the denial of a certificate of probable cause and the stipulated sentence would independently bar the plea-withdrawal and upper-term challenges, and it gives no factual account of any ruling, so the reasoning cannot be evaluated from the opinion alone.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 4/22/26 P. v. Magana 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, D086599

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. FWV22001746)

GIL ALEJANDRO MAGANA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, Michael A. Camber, Judge. Affirmed. Heather Monasky, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Gil Alejandro Magana entered into a plea agreement in which he pleaded guilty to two sex offenses and agreed to a stipulated sentence. Magana pleaded guilty to one count of forcible copulation of a child under age 14 (Pen. Code,1 § 287, subd. (c)(2)(B); count 5) and one count of sexual penetration by force of a child under age 14 (§ 289, subd. (a)(1)(B); count 6).

1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. The remaining counts were dismissed. Magana’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea was denied and he was sentenced to the agreed term of 22 years in prison. Magana filed a timely notice of appeal and requested a certificate of probable cause, which was denied by the trial court. Appellate counsel has filed a brief under the authority of 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 Magana 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 the following possible issues which were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal. 1. Whether the trial court erred in denying Magana’s motion to withdraw his plea. 2. Whether the court erred in denying Magana’s motion to replace appointed counsel under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 218. 3. Whether the court erred in imposing the upper term for count 5. 4. Whether the court erred in ordering Magana to pay restitution. 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 Magana in this appeal.

2 DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.* WE CONCUR:

MCCONNELL, P. J.

KELETY, 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