People v. Toledo CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D087338 · 2026-05-26 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of Riverside County · No. INF1900614
Trial judge: Susanne S. Cho
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Joan K. Irion (author), Laurence D. Rubin

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T03:23Z · confidence low

The trial court accepted Toledo's guilty pleas and sentenced him to a total term of two years in prison. 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
Sentencing “counsel has identified a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: whether the court erred in sentencing Toledo.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The appellate court noted that counsel identified the sentencing as a possible issue but stated that after independent review, no arguable issues for reversal were discovered. The opinion does not provide specific reasoning or legal analysis regarding the correctness of the sentence itself, only the conclusion that no error was found.

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 appointed counsel to file a brief identifying any arguable issues and the court to independently review the record for error.
relied: People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 — Establishes the procedure for a defendant to request replacement of appointed counsel.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for reviewing appeals where counsel identifies no issues. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' analysis because it provides no substantive legal reasoning for why the sentencing was correct, merely stating that no error was found after review.

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 Toledo's guilty pleas in two cases (assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury with a great bodily injury enhancement and a strike prior, possession of a controlled substance in prison, and firearm and ammunition possession), continued a Marsden motion so he could retain private counsel (which he never did), sentenced him to a total of two years in prison, and denied his request for a certificate of probable cause. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief identifying sentencing as a possible issue, Toledo 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
Sentencing of Toledo to a total term of two years in prison following guilty pleas (the sole possible issue identified by appellate counsel under Anders) “counsel has identified a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: whether the court erred in sentencing Toledo.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The court conducted the independent record review required by Wende and Anders and found no arguable sentencing error. The opinion does not explain how a two-year aggregate term was reached given a GBI enhancement and admitted strike, but a term below the apparent statutory exposure would not prejudice the defendant and the opinion gives no basis to identify a specific legal error. Because the certificate of probable cause was denied, review was in any event limited to post-plea matters not affecting the plea's validity, which the court's review of sentencing fits.
Handling of the pre-plea Marsden motion by continuing the matter 30 days to allow Toledo to retain private counsel “The court continued the matter for 30 days so Toledo could retain private counsel. Toledo never retained private counsel.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The appellate court recited the Marsden history but did not separately analyze it, and no certificate of probable cause issued, so a challenge to pre-plea proceedings affecting the validity of the plea would not be cognizable. The opinion provides too little about the Marsden hearing to assess whether the trial court adequately inquired into the complaints, so I cannot form a view beyond noting the court's independent review found no arguable issue.

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 frivolous must file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, and the court must then examine the record itself.
relied: People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 — A defendant seeking substitution of appointed counsel must be permitted to state the reasons for the request and the court must inquire into them.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the Wende/Anders procedure, sets out the charges, pleas, procedural history, and sentence, and states that independent review disclosed no arguable issues, which is the standard disposition for a no-issue appeal following a guilty plea with no certificate of probable cause. It does not explain how the two-year aggregate term was computed in light of the admitted strike and GBI enhancement, nor note the limits on review imposed by the denied certificate, but neither omission suggests a result adverse to the defendant.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 5/26/26 P. v. Toledo 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, D087338

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. INF1900614)

MANUEL ARMANDO TOLEDO,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Susanne S. Cho, Judge. Affirmed. William Paul Melcher, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent. Manuel Toledo pleaded guilty to offenses in two cases as part of a plea agreement. In this case, superior court No. INF1900614, he pleaded guilty to assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury (Pen. Code,1 § 245, 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. subd. (a)(4)) and admitted inflicting great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a).) He also pleaded guilty to possessing a controlled substance in prison (§ 4573). Toledo admitted a strike prior (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)). In case No. INF2300271, Toledo admitted unlawful possession of a firearm and possession of ammunition. (§§ 29800, subd. (a)(1), 25400, subd. (a), 30305, subd. (a)(1).) Prior to pleading guilty, Toledo made a motion to replace appointed counsel (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.) The court continued the matter for 30 days so Toledo could retain private counsel. Toledo never retained private counsel. The court sentenced Toledo to a total term of two years in prison. Toledo filed a timely notice of appeal and requested a certificate of probable cause, which the court denied. 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 Toledo the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. This appeal follows guilty pleas. The charges arise from a confrontation between Toledo and a loss prevention officer during Toledo’s attempt to commit shoplifting. We will not set forth a separate statement of facts. 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, 2 counsel has identified a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: whether the court erred in sentencing Toledo. 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 Toledo in this appeal. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.* WE CONCUR:

IRION, 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
People v. Marsden Crim. 14119 · 1970-02-26