People v. Young CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D085224 · 2026-04-23 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCN203478
Trial judge: Lisa R. Rodriguez
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Judith D. McConnell (author), Buchanan

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T03:25Z · confidence low

The trial court resentenced the defendant to 27 years and 8 months in prison under Penal Code section 1172.75, declining to strike prior convictions or enhancements. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, finding no arguable issues for reversal after an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Declining to strike the defendant's strike prior conviction “Whether the court erred in declining to strike Young’s strike prior.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The court listed this as a potential issue identified by counsel but stated it did not discover any arguable issues for reversal after independent review. The opinion does not provide specific reasoning or apply a standard of review to this specific ruling, relying instead on the broad discretionary authority of the trial court mentioned in the Wende analysis.
Declining to strike the defendant's serious felony prior conviction “Whether the court erred in declining to strike Young’s serious felony prior.”	unclear	not reached	unsure Similar to the strike prior, this was listed as a potential issue but the court found no arguable error. The opinion does not detail the legal basis for affirming this specific decision, only that the trial court exercised broad discretionary authority.
Declining to stay or strike the firearm enhancement “Whether the court erred in declining to stay or strike the firearm enhancement.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The court identified this as a potential issue but concluded no arguable error existed. The opinion does not provide specific analysis regarding the firearm enhancement statutes or the trial court's discretion in this context.
Failing to stay counts 4 and 6 under section 654 “Whether the court erred in failing to stay counts 4 and 6 under section 654.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The court listed this as a potential issue but found no arguable error. The opinion does not analyze the specific facts of the underlying crimes to determine if section 654 applied, relying on the general Wende review standard.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appellate counsel to file a brief identifying potential issues and the court to independently review the record for error when counsel finds no arguable 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 a standard Wende/Anders review where the court affirms based on the absence of arguable issues. It is defensible because it follows the procedural requirements for no-merit appeals, but it is thin on substantive legal analysis for the specific sentencing issues raised.

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

Following a Penal Code section 1172.75 recall, the San Diego Superior Court resentenced Duane Young on his 2006 robbery convictions to 27 years eight months, declining to strike his strike prior, serious felony prior, or firearm enhancement and not staying counts 4 and 6 under section 654. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief, Young filed a supplemental brief arguing his sentence should be further reduced, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issue, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75 to an aggregate term of 27 years eight months “The court resentenced Young to a total term of 27 years eight months.”	abuse of discretion	correct	agree with court The opinion treats the resentencing as an exercise of the trial court's broad discretion and, after Wende/Anders review and consideration of Young's supplemental brief, finds no arguable error. Young's supplemental arguments (no physical injury, firearm only displayed, time served) go to the weight of mitigating factors rather than legal error, so the court's conclusion that they raise no arguable issue is consistent with the deferential standard. The opinion gives no detail about the trial court's reasons, so the conclusion cannot be independently verified, but the procedure followed was proper.
Denial of request to strike Young's prior strike conviction “1. Whether the court erred in declining to strike Young’s strike prior.”	abuse of discretion	correct	unsure A Romero ruling is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and the opinion states only that counsel flagged the issue and the court found no arguable error on independent review. No facts about the trial court's stated reasons or the record of Young's history are given, so there is no basis to say the ruling was wrong, but equally none to confirm it beyond the court's assurance.
Denial of request to strike the serious felony prior enhancement under section 1385 “2. Whether the court erred in declining to strike Young’s serious felony prior.”	abuse of discretion	correct	unsure The court identified this as a potential issue but provided no analysis beyond its statement that independent review disclosed no arguable error. The opinion does not describe whether the trial court considered the section 1385, subdivision (c) mitigating factors, so the correctness of the ruling cannot be evaluated from the opinion alone.
Denial of request to stay or strike the firearm enhancement “3. Whether the court erred in declining to stay or strike the firearm enhancement.”	abuse of discretion	correct	unsure Young's supplemental brief argued he only displayed the firearm and injured no one, which bears on this enhancement. The court characterized these as strong arguments from his perspective but not an arguable claim of legal error, which is a reasonable application of the abuse of discretion standard, though the opinion recites no facts about the trial court's reasoning.
Decision not to stay sentence on counts 4 and 6 under section 654 “4. Whether the court erred in failing to stay counts 4 and 6 under section 654.”	unclear	correct	unsure Section 654 questions typically turn on whether the record supports a finding of separate objectives or acts, but the opinion does not describe counts 4 and 6, the underlying conduct, or the trial court's findings. The court simply reports that independent review disclosed no arguable issue, so the ruling cannot be independently assessed from the opinion.

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 arguable error before affirming.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous may so advise the court and request to withdraw, accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
missed: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Wende independent review is constitutionally required only in a first appeal of right from a judgment of conviction; in postconviction appeals the court need only evaluate arguments raised in a defendant's supplemental brief, though it may exercise discretion to conduct independent review. The opinion applied Wende to a section 1172.75 resentencing appeal without addressing whether Delgadillo governs, although any omission is harmless because the court both addressed Young's supplemental brief and independently reviewed the record.
missed: People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 — In a Wende appeal, the Court of Appeal's opinion should set out the offense, procedural history, the contentions raised in the defendant's supplemental brief, and the reasons they fail; the opinion here does so only summarily.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court followed the Wende/Anders procedure, considered Young's supplemental brief, and reached the affirmance a deferential review of a discretionary resentencing would ordinarily produce. It nonetheless gives no substantive analysis of the four flagged issues, recites no facts about the trial court's reasons, and does not address whether Delgadillo limits Wende review in a section 1172.75 resentencing appeal.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 4/23/26 P. v. Young 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, D085224

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN203478)

DUANE YOUNG,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Lisa R. Rodriguez, Judge. Affirmed.

Duane Young, in pro. per.; and Joshua L. Siegel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2006, Duane Young was convicted of three counts of robbery with firearm enhancements. Young admitted four prison priors and a serious felony prior conviction. Young was sentenced to a total term of 36 years in prison. Young appealed and this court reversed his conviction and remanded the case for resentencing. (People v. Young (Mar. 7, 2007, D048545) [nonpub. opn.].) Following resentencing, Young’s term was reduced to 30 years eight months in prison. This court affirmed the judgment following resentencing. (People v Young (Feb. 6, 2008, D051316) [nonpub. opn.].) In 2022, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation notified the court that Young was eligible for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75. The trial court received briefing and held a resentencing hearing. The court resentenced Young to a total term of 27 years eight months. Young filed a timely notice of appeal. 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 Young the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal. Young has responded with a lengthy submission in which he argues nobody was physically injured in the underlying crimes. He only displayed a firearm but did not use it. Young argues he has been in prison long enough and that the trial court should have taken action to reduce his sentence. While he makes strong arguments from his perspective, he has not identified any arguable issue for reversal on appeal, based on this record. Notwithstanding the fact of his disagreement with the trial court’s decision, he does not raise any arguable issues regarding the court’s exercise of its broad discretionary authority.

2 Young’s supplemental brief does not demonstrate the existence of an arguable issue for reversal. 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, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel has identified four possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal. 1. Whether the court erred in declining to strike Young’s strike prior. 2. Whether the court erred in declining to strike Young’s serious felony prior. 3. Whether the court erred in declining to stay or strike the firearm enhancement. 4. Whether the court erred in failing to stay counts 4 and 6 under section 654. 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 Young in this appeal.

3 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.* WE CONCUR:

MCCONNELL, P. J.

BUCHANAN, 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