People v. Block CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCS319612
- Trial judge
- Garry G. Haehnle
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Truc T. Do (author), Buchanan
Analysis
The trial court denied Block's motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which he characterized as a petition for writ of error coram nobis under Code of Civil Procedure section 663. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, finding no arguable issues for reversal.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea / petition for writ of error coram nobis“Whether the trial court erred in denying Block’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea under Penal Code section 1018 or Code of Civil Procedure section 663.” | unclear | not reached | unsure The appellate court identified the issue but stated it had not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal, effectively affirming the trial court's denial without detailed analysis. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires independent review of the record by the court when appointed counsel files a Wende brief identifying no arguable issues.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires counsel to identify possible issues and the court to independently review the record in cases where counsel finds the appeal frivolous.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it follows the Wende/Anders protocol for handling frivolous appeals by independent review. However, it provides no substantive legal analysis for the denial of the plea withdrawal motion, relying solely on the absence of arguable issues.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual disposition unusual dispositionThe trial court denied Block's post-judgment motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which he styled as a petition for writ of error coram nobis brought under Code of Civil Procedure section 663, after he had already been sentenced to the stipulated two-year eight-month term following a second probation violation. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief, Block filed nothing, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of Block's post-judgment motion to withdraw guilty plea / petition for writ of error coram nobis (brought under Pen. Code § 1018 and Code Civ. Proc. § 663)“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.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The opinion does not analyze the ruling on the merits; it conducts Wende/Anders independent review and finds no arguable issue. On the facts stated, the result is defensible: a Penal Code section 1018 motion must be made before judgment, and judgment had long since been entered; Code of Civil Procedure section 663 is a civil new-trial-type remedy with no application to a criminal plea; a bare claim of innocence does not satisfy the narrow requirements for coram nobis relief; and Block waived appeal from the stipulated sentence and was denied a certificate of probable cause, which is ordinarily required to attack the validity of a plea on appeal. Nothing in the opinion suggests any error. |
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 record for error before affirming.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal frivolous should so advise the court and identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
- missed: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Wende/Anders procedures are constitutionally required only on a first appeal of right from a conviction; in appeals from post-judgment orders the court is not required to conduct independent review, though it may do so in its discretion, and should notify the defendant that failure to file a supplemental brief may result in dismissal.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court reached a defensible result by conducting independent review and finding no arguable issue, which is consistent with the apparent untimeliness of a section 1018 motion after judgment, the inapplicability of Code of Civil Procedure section 663, and the denial of a certificate of probable cause. It did not, however, address whether Wende review was even required for this appeal from a post-judgment order under Delgadillo, nor did it discuss the certificate-of-probable-cause or appealability questions, so the opinion is thin on the governing framework.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
record incompleteOpinion
Filed 4/28/26 P. v. Block 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, D086742
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCS319612)
CARL EDWARD BLOCK,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Garry G. Haehnle, Judge. Affirmed. Jill Kent, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Carl Edward Block entered into a plea agreement in which he pleaded guilty to one count of making a criminal threat (Pen. Code, § 422) and one count of evading a peace officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)). The parties stipulated Block would receive a two-year eight-month sentence, with execution suspended pending probation. Block waived the right to appeal from any stipulated sentence. Block was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement. In July 2023, Block admitted a probation violation. He was sentenced to 365 days in jail and reinstated on probation. In February 2024, Block admitted another probation violation. The court imposed the stipulated term of two years eight months. Previously Block made an oral motion to withdraw his guilty plea claiming he was innocent. The motion was denied. In July 2025, Block filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, a motion he deemed a petition for writ of error coram nobis. Block sought relief under the authority of section 663 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court denied the petition. Block filed a timely notice of appeal. His request for a certificate of probable cause was denied. 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 Block 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 erred in denying 2 Block’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea under Penal Code section 1018 or Code of Civil Procedure section 663. 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 Block on this appeal. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.* WE CONCUR:
DO, Acting 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. 3
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12