People v. Baldovinos CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D087046 · 2026-05-08 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD308986
Trial judge: John Pro
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Julia C. Kelety (author), Laurence D. Rubin

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T03:24Z · confidence high

The trial court sentenced the defendant to a stipulated 16-month term for felony vandalism following a guilty plea. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record found no arguable issues for reversal.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Sentencing to a 16-month term in accordance with the plea agreement “whether the trial court erred in sentencing Baldovinos to the low term of 16-month in accordance with the plea agreement”	unclear	not reached	agree with court The appellate court identified the potential issue of whether the trial court erred in imposing the low term but concluded after independent review that there were no arguable issues for reversal, effectively finding the stipulated sentence valid or the issue non-meritorious.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Mandates independent review of the record by the appellate court when appointed counsel files a brief stating no arguable issues exist.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires counsel to identify potential issues and the court to conduct an independent review of the record to ensure no reversible error exists.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for reviewing a guilty plea appeal where counsel identifies no issues. The court explicitly states it conducted the required independent review and found no error, which is the standard disposition for such cases.

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

The trial court accepted Gamaliel Baldovinos's guilty plea to felony vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subds. (a), (b)(1)) and imposed the stipulated 16-month low term while revoking probation on a trailing misdemeanor case. On appeal, without a certificate of probable cause, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief; the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Imposition of the stipulated 16-month low-term sentence for felony vandalism and revocation of probation on the trailing misdemeanor, entered pursuant to the plea agreement. “whether the trial court erred in sentencing Baldovinos to the low term of 16-month in accordance with the plea agreement.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The court did not state a conventional standard of review; it performed the independent record review required by Wende and Anders and found no arguable issue. Because the sentence matched the stipulated term in the plea agreement and the defendant obtained no certificate of probable cause, a challenge to the agreed sentence would in substance attack the validity of the plea and would be barred (People v. Panizzon), so the conclusion that there is no arguable issue is well supported even though the opinion does not spell this out.

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 to determine whether any arguable issue exists.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous may so advise the court but must file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
missed: People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68 — A challenge to a sentence that was negotiated as part of a plea bargain is in substance a challenge to the validity of the plea and requires a certificate of probable cause under Penal Code section 1237.5.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion correctly applies the Wende/Anders framework and reaches the right result given a stipulated sentence imposed exactly as bargained and the absence of a certificate of probable cause. It does not, however, explain why the one potential issue counsel identified is not arguable, and it omits any reference to Panizzon or the certificate requirement that would dispose of that issue.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 5/8/26 P. v. Baldovinos 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, D087046

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD308986)

GAMALIEL BALDOVINOS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, John Pro, Judge. Affirmed. Pauline E. Villanueva, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. The appeal in this case is from a judgment and sentence following the terms of a plea agreement and stipulated sentence. Gamaliel Baldovinos pleaded guilty to felony vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subds. (a) and (b)(1)). The parties stipulated Baldovinos would receive a 16-month sentence for this case, and that probation would be revoked on a trailing misdemeanor case. Baldovinos was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement. Baldovinos filed a timely notice of appeal. He did not obtain 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 advised Baldovinos that he could file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. Since this appeal arises from a guilty plea with a stipulated sentence, 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 a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: whether the trial court erred in sentencing Baldovinos to the low term of 16-month in accordance with the plea agreement. 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 Baldovinos in this appeal.

2 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.* WE CONCUR:

KELETY, 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. 3

Cites, in this corpus

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