People v. Underwood CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D085937 · 2026-04-29 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD302367
Trial judge: Joan P. Weber
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: O'Rourke (author), William S. Dato, Julia C. Kelety

Analysis

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

The trial court convicted the defendant of corporal injury of a dating partner and sentenced him to eight years in state prison after he admitted two strike priors and a prior state prison term. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record under People v. Wende, finding no reasonably arguable issues supporting reversal.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Affirmance of the judgment following independent review of the record for error. “We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738 and have considered the possible issues identified by Underwood’s counsel. We found no reasonably arguable issues supporting a reversal.”	de novo	not reached	agree with court The court affirmed the judgment after conducting an independent review of the entire record as required by People v. Wende and Anders v. California. The court found no reasonably arguable issues supporting a reversal based on the potential issues identified by appellate counsel.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appellate counsel to file a brief identifying potential issues and invites the court to independently review the record for error when no argument is presented for reversal.
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 — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the Wende/Anders framework for reviewing a no-merit appeal. It identifies the potential issues raised by counsel and states that the court independently reviewed the record and found no reasonably arguable issues.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

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

A San Diego jury convicted Underwood of corporal injury on a dating partner (Pen. Code § 273.5, subd. (a)), rejected a great bodily injury allegation, and after he admitted two strike priors and a prior-prison-term aggravating circumstance the court sentenced him to eight years in state prison. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief identifying five possible issues; the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no reasonably arguable issue, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Judgment of conviction and eight-year sentence, reviewed under Wende/Anders independent record review “Having independently reviewed the entire record for error as required by Anders and Wende, we affirm.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The court followed the Wende/Anders procedure: counsel filed a no-issue brief, the defendant was given the chance to file a supplemental brief and did not, and the court states it reviewed the entire record. Nothing in the opinion suggests a departure from that procedure, so the affirmance is procedurally supported, although the opinion contains no substantive analysis that can be checked.
Acceptance of defendant's admission of the aggravating circumstance without advisement of penal consequences “Was appellant’s admission of the circumstance in aggravation knowing and intelligent where he was not advised of the penal consequences of admission?”	unclear	correct	unsure The court lists this as a possible issue and states only that no reasonably arguable issue exists. The opinion gives no facts about the advisements or prejudice, so the conclusion cannot be independently evaluated from the opinion alone.
Validity of admission of aggravating circumstance where counsel, not defendant, waived jury trial “Was appellant’s admission of the circumstance in aggravation valid where he did not waive his right to a jury trial but his counsel waived for him?”	unclear	correct	unsure Flagged by counsel but not discussed; the court's blanket finding of no arguable issue provides no reasoning or record facts to assess whether the waiver was adequate.
Imposition of upper term despite claimed low-term presumption based on childhood trauma “Did the court err in overlooking the low term presumption due to appellant’s childhood trauma and neglect in imposing the upper term?”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion does not describe the sentencing record, the trial court's findings, or whether the trauma was shown to contribute to the offense, so the implicit rejection of this issue cannot be verified from the opinion.
Effectiveness of trial counsel in not seeking a continuance to investigate childhood trauma before sentencing “Was trial counsel ineffective for not requesting a continuance to investigate appellant’s childhood trauma and its contribution to the offense given appellant’s sentencing letters received by counsel the day of sentencing?”	unclear	correct	unsure Ineffective assistance claims on direct appeal generally fail absent a record showing no tactical reason and prejudice; the court's conclusion is plausible but the opinion supplies no facts to confirm it.
Finding that prior convictions were numerous based in part on a juvenile adjudication “Did the court err in basing the finding that appellant’s prior convictions were “numerous” on at least one juvenile adjudication?”	unclear	correct	unsure Listed as a possible issue and implicitly rejected without discussion; the opinion does not state how many priors were found or whether the juvenile adjudication was necessary to the finding, so the result cannot be assessed.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel files a brief raising no issues, the Court of Appeal must independently review the entire record for arguable issues 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.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the standard Wende/Anders procedure, states the facts and the possible issues counsel identified, confirms the defendant declined to file a supplemental brief, and affirms after independent review. It offers no analysis of the five flagged sentencing and admission issues, so while the disposition is conventional and defensible, the reasoning cannot be tested from the face of the opinion.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 4/29/26 P. v. Underwood 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, D085937

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SCD302367)

DIARMEN BART UNDERWOOD,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Joan P. Weber, Judge. Affirmed.

Heather Lee Monasky, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. A jury convicted Diarmen Bart Underwood of corporal injury of a dating partner. (Pen. Code,1 § 273.5, subd. (a), count 1.) After Underwood 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. admitted two strike priors and the circumstance in aggravation that he had served a prior state prison term, the court sentenced him to a total of eight years in state prison. Appellate counsel filed a brief presenting no argument for reversal but inviting this court to review the record for error under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders). We offered Underwood the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not done so. Having independently reviewed the entire record for error as required by Anders and Wende, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY Underwood and C.L. lived together in San Diego with their two-year old daughter. In January 2024, Underwood slapped C.L. across the face as she sat on the toilet. C.L. left the bathroom and in the living room, she pushed Underwood down onto the couch and grabbed the back of his hair. Underwood pushed her off, rose from the couch, and hit C.L. in the head. C.L. got dizzy and saw stars, and fell backwards. C.L. was diagnosed with an acute concussion and a thumb sprain. C.L. testified falsely at the preliminary hearing that she had slipped on a toy in the living room and hit her head on the couch. At trial she explained that she changed her story because she needed somewhere for her and her daughter to go. C.L. also testified about an incident of domestic violence by Underwood against her that occurred a few months before the charged incident. The jury convicted Underwood of corporal injury of a dating partner (§ 273.5, subd. (a), count 1) but found not true the allegation that he inflicted great bodily injury. (§ 12022.7, subd. (e).)

2 DISCUSSION Appellate counsel filed a Wende brief asking the court to review the record for error. To assist the court in its review and in compliance with Anders, counsel identified the following possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: 1) Was appellant’s admission of the circumstance in aggravation knowing and intelligent where he was not advised of the penal consequences of admission? 2) Was appellant’s admission of the circumstance in aggravation valid where he did not waive his right to a jury trial but his counsel waived for him? 3) Did the court err in overlooking the low term presumption due to appellant’s childhood trauma and neglect in imposing the upper term? 4) Was trial counsel ineffective for not requesting a continuance to investigate appellant’s childhood trauma and its contribution to the offense given appellant’s sentencing letters received by counsel the day of sentencing? 5) Did the court err in basing the finding that appellant’s prior convictions were “numerous” on at least one juvenile adjudication?

We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738 and have considered the possible issues identified by Underwood’s counsel. We found no reasonably arguable issues supporting a reversal. Competent counsel has represented Underwood in this appeal.

3 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

O’ROURKE, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

DATO, J.

KELETY, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12