People v. Jauregui CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD287671
- Trial judge
- Dwayne K. Moring
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Buchanan (author), Laurence D. Rubin
Analysis
The trial court ordered the defendant to serve the remaining 331 days of his local custody sentence after he admitted to violating the terms of his mandatory supervision. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende and finding no arguable issues for reversal.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Termination of mandatory supervision and return to custody for remaining sentence“In April 2025, after Jauregui admitted violating the terms of his release, he was returned to jail for the remaining 331 days of custody.” | abuse of discretion | not reached | unsure The court identified the issue as a potential abuse of discretion but stated it had not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal, effectively affirming the judgment without a detailed analysis of the specific ruling. |
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 Wende brief indicating no arguable issues.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to withdraw from representation in an appeal where no arguable issues exist, requiring the court to independently review the record.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for reviewing a record where counsel identifies no issues. However, it provides no substantive legal analysis or reasoning regarding the specific claim of abuse of discretion mentioned by counsel, relying solely on the court's independent review.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court, after Jauregui admitted violating the terms of his mandatory supervision on a split sentence for cocaine sales, terminated supervision and returned him to jail for the remaining 331 days of his term. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief, Jauregui filed nothing, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Termination of mandatory supervision and remand to local custody for the remaining 331 days after admitted violations of release terms“whether the trial court abused its discretion in terminating appellant’s mandatory supervision.” | abuse of discretion | correct | agree with court Jauregui admitted the violation after several prior violations, and revocation of mandatory supervision upon an admitted violation is a discretionary call that is rarely disturbed. The opinion recites nothing suggesting an improper basis, an unauthorized custody calculation, or a defective admission, so the court's conclusion that no arguable issue exists is supported on this record. The court did not expressly state a standard, but counsel framed the issue as abuse of discretion and the court accepted that framing. |
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 in a first appeal of right.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal lacking merit should file 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 criminal conviction; it does not apply as of right to appeals from postjudgment orders, though a court may still elect to review the record.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court followed the Wende/Anders procedure, gave the defendant an opportunity to file a supplemental brief, independently reviewed the record, and found no arguable issue in the termination of supervision after an admitted violation, which is a defensible result. It did not address whether Wende review was actually required for what appears to be a postjudgment supervision-revocation order under Delgadillo, though because the court conducted full independent review anyway the omission does not affect the outcome.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
record incompleteOpinion
Filed 5/8/26 P. v. Jauregui 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, D086129
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD287671)
CHRISTOPHER ANDREW JAUREGUI,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Dwayne K. Moring, Judge. Affirmed. Ryan Peabody, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Christopher Andrew Jauregui pleaded guilty to sale of cocaine and admitted the total weight of the cocaine exceeded four kilograms. (Health and Saf. Code, §§ 11352, subd. (a) & 11370.4 subd. (a)(2)). Jauregui was sentenced to 10 years of local custody under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (h)(5)(b) with five years to be served in custody and five years on mandatory supervision. Jauregui was released from local custody in July 2020, rearrested in December 2021, placed under mandatory supervision on April 5, 2024, and rearrested in February 2025. After being placed under mandatory supervision, Jauregui had several violations of the terms of his release. In April 2025, after Jauregui admitted violating the terms of his release, he was returned to jail for the remaining 331 days of custody. Jauregui filed a timely notice of appeal and obtained a certificate of probable cause. 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 Jauregui 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 (Anders) counsel has identified a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the possible merits of this appeal: whether the trial court abused its discretion in terminating appellant’s mandatory supervision. 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 Jauregui in this appeal. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.
2 HUFFMAN, J.* WE CONCUR:
BUCHANAN, Acting P. J.
RUBIN, 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.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12