People v. Eldridge CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D085802 · 2026-04-30 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Bernardino County · No. FVI19003462
Trial judge: John P. Vander Feer
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: O'Rourke (author), Truc T. Do

Analysis

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

The trial court denied the defendant's motions to strike prior convictions and the firearm enhancement, reimposing a sentence of 25 years to life plus 10 years. 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 motion to strike 'strike' priors “Did the court err by failing to exercise its discretion to strike one or more of his strike priors?”	unclear	not reached	unsure The court identified the issue in the Wende brief but stated it had not discovered any arguable issues for reversal after independent review, without providing specific legal analysis for this ruling.
Denial of motion to strike or substitute firearm enhancement “Did the court err in failing to strike the firearm enhancement or sentence on a lesser enhancement?”	unclear	not reached	unsure The court listed this as a potential issue considered by counsel but concluded no arguable issues for reversal existed, without detailing the application of the standard of review or the specific legal basis for affirming the enhancement.
Imposition of fines and fees “Did the court err in imposing fines and fee assessments?”	unclear	not reached	unsure The court noted this as a third potential issue but affirmed the judgment without addressing the specific legal arguments regarding the validity of the fines and fees.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires independent review of the record by the court when appointed counsel files a brief stating no arguable issues exist.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to withdraw from a case where no arguable issues exist, requiring court review of the record.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is a standard Wende review where the court affirms based on the absence of arguable issues identified by counsel and its own independent review. It does not provide substantive legal analysis for the specific sentencing rulings, relying instead on the procedural framework of Wende and Anders.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:21Z · confidence low

On remand after a prior reversal of sentence, the San Bernardino County Superior Court declined to strike Reginald Eldridge's two strike priors, declined to strike or substitute a lesser firearm enhancement, reimposed 25 years to life plus 10 years for the section 12022.53, subdivision (b) enhancement, and reimposed the previously ordered fines and fees. Appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief, Eldridge filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of request to strike one or more strike priors under section 1385 (Romero) at resentencing “The court denied the request to strike the “strike” priors and denied the motion to strike or substitute a lesser firearm enhancement.”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion recites the denial and counsel's flagged issue but describes none of the trial court's reasoning or the Romero factors; it simply reports that independent Wende review disclosed no arguable issue. Nothing in the opinion shows an error, but nothing permits independent verification either.
Denial of motion to strike the section 12022.53, subdivision (b) firearm enhancement or to impose a lesser uncharged enhancement “Did the court err in failing to strike the firearm enhancement or sentence on a lesser enhancement?”	unclear	correct	unsure The court had discretion under section 12022.53, subdivision (h) and section 1385 to strike or substitute a lesser enhancement; the opinion confirms the trial court recognized and exercised that discretion by denying the motion, and the Wende review found no arguable abuse. The record quoted is too thin to say more.
Reimposition of previously ordered fines and fee assessments “The court also reimposed the fines and fees previously ordered.”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion identifies this as a possible issue counsel considered but states no amounts, no ability-to-pay objection, and no analysis. With no indication of an objection or error in the record described, the Wende affirmance is defensible but unverifiable.

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. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 — A Wende opinion should contain a brief description of the facts and procedural history, the crimes of which the defendant was convicted, the punishment imposed, and the contentions raised by the defendant, so the record shows the court actually performed its independent review.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court applied the correct Wende/Anders framework, listed the issues counsel identified, and expressly stated it independently reviewed the record, which supports a Wende affirmance. It did not, however, include any statement of facts or describe the trial court's reasons for denying Romero relief and the firearm-enhancement motion, which falls short of the content People v. Kelly says a Wende opinion should contain and leaves the result unverifiable from the opinion alone.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 4/30/26 P. v. Eldridge 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, D085802

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. FVI19003462)

REGINALD ELDRIDGE,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. John Peter Vander Feer, Judge. Affirmed. Raymond M. DiGuiseppe, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2020, a jury convicted Reginald Eldridge of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) (all further statutory references are to the Penal Code). The jury found Eldridge personally used a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)). The court found true two serious felony prior convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)) and two strike priors (id., subds. (b)-(i)). Eldridge was sentenced to a total term of 25 years to life plus 10 years for the firearm enhancement. Eldridge appealed and this court reversed the sentence and remanded the case for a new sentencing hearing in an unpublished opinion (People v. Eldridge (Jan. 12, 2023, D079641)). On remand, the court held a new sentencing hearing. The court denied the request to strike the “strike” priors and denied the motion to strike or substitute a lesser firearm enhancement. The trial court again imposed a sentence of 25 years to life plus 10 years for the firearm enhancement. The court also reimposed the fines and fees previously ordered. Eldridge filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) 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 Eldridge the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. We discussed the facts of the underlying crimes in our previous opinion. We will not include a statement of facts in this opinion. 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 (Anders) counsel has identified three possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Did the court err by failing to exercise its discretion to strike one or more of his strike priors? Did the court err in failing to strike the firearm enhancement or sentence on a lesser enhancement?

2 Did the court err in imposing fines and fee assessments? 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 Eldridge in this appeal. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.* WE CONCUR:

O’ROURKE, Acting P. J.

DO, 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