People v. Bertuglia CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D085436 · 2026-06-09 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCN450717
Trial judge: Brad A. Weinreb
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: William S. Dato (author), Laurence D. Rubin

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T03:21Z · confidence low

The trial court denied the defendant's request for mental health diversion and sentenced him to six years in prison following a guilty plea. On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after conducting an independent review under People v. Wende, finding no arguable issues for reversal due to the absence of a certificate of probable cause.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of mental health diversion “If a certificate of probable cause could be issued, would the record show the trial court abused its discretion in denying mental health diversion.”	unclear	not reached	agree with court The appellate court did not review the merits of the diversion denial because the appellant failed to obtain a certificate of probable cause, which is required to appeal from a guilty plea. The court noted that even if the issue were reviewable, it had not discovered any arguable issue for reversal on the record.
Ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to obtain a certificate of probable cause “Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain a certificate of probable cause.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The court listed this as a potential issue identified by appellate counsel but ultimately concluded that no arguable issues for reversal existed on the record. The court did not provide specific reasoning for rejecting this claim, relying instead on the general Wende review finding.
Ineffective assistance of trial counsel for not pursuing a writ of mandamus or habeas corpus “Whether counsel was ineffective for not pursuing a writ of mandamus to compel issuance of a certificate of probable cause or filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus.”	unclear	not reached	unsure Similar to the previous claim, the court identified this as a potential issue but did not analyze it specifically. The court's conclusion that no arguable issues existed implies a rejection, but the lack of specific reasoning makes it difficult to assess the legal sufficiency of the dismissal.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Mandates independent review of the record by the appellate court when counsel files a brief stating no arguable issues exist.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires counsel to file a brief identifying any arguable issues and the court to independently review the record when counsel believes the appeal is frivolous.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound in its application of the Wende/Anders framework, correctly identifying that the lack of a certificate of probable cause limits the scope of review. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' opinion because it lists specific potential issues raised by counsel (ineffective assistance) but fails to provide any specific legal reasoning for why those issues are not arguable, relying solely on the general conclusion of the independent 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

Richard Bertuglia pleaded guilty to corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)), admitted a strike prior, was denied mental health diversion, and was sentenced to six years in prison. On appeal, after the parties discovered he had no certificate of probable cause under section 1237.5, counsel filed a Wende brief; the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issue, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of pretrial mental health diversion (§ 1001.36) before the guilty plea “was therefore unable to challenge the court’s ruling on diversion on appeal.”	unclear	not reached	agree with court A challenge to a pre-plea ruling on diversion goes to the validity of the plea proceedings and, absent a certificate of probable cause under section 1237.5 or an exception under rule 8.304(b), is not cognizable on appeal from a guilty plea. The court correctly declined to reach the merits; it did not purport to decide whether the trial court abused its discretion, treating the issue only as a possible Anders issue.
Judgment of conviction and six-year sentence entered on the guilty plea and admitted strike prior “We have independently reviewed the record for error as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issue for reversal on this record.”	unclear	correct	unsure The court conducted the independent review Wende and Anders require and found no arguable issue, which is the standard disposition for a no-issue brief on appeal from a guilty plea without a certificate. Because the opinion omits any statement of facts and gives no detail about the plea colloquy or sentencing, the reader cannot verify the conclusion from the opinion itself.

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.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous may so advise the court, 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 include a brief description of the facts and procedural history, the crimes of conviction, the punishment imposed, and any contentions the defendant personally raises; this court expressly omitted a statement of facts.
missed: People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68 — A certificate of probable cause is required to appeal issues going to the validity of a guilty plea, including matters that are in substance challenges to the plea rather than post-plea proceedings.
missed: People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084 — Section 1237.5 and the implementing rules must be strictly applied; a defendant who fails to obtain a certificate of probable cause may not raise certificate issues on appeal.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court correctly recognized that section 1237.5 barred review of the pre-plea diversion ruling and performed the independent review Wende and Anders require, reaching a defensible affirmance. It skipped the Kelly requirement of a brief factual and procedural summary and cited no authority for why the diversion ruling is non-cognizable without a certificate, leaving the reader to take the conclusion on faith.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 6/9/26 P. v. Bertuglia 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, D085436 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN450717)

RICHARD CONRAD BERTUGLIA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Brad A. Weinreb, Judge. Affirmed.

Matthew M. Johnson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal, Assistant Attorney General, Daniel B. Rogers and Joseph C. Anagnos, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. This appeal is somewhat unusual. Appellant pleaded guilty to several offenses. He sought, but was denied, mental health diversion. Thereafter, appellant filed an opening brief challenging the denial of mental health diversion. The Attorney General filed a respondent’s brief. In the process of reviewing the briefs, the court and counsel discovered appellant had pleaded guilty to a felony offense but did not obtain a certificate of probable cause (Pen. Code,1 § 1237.5) and was therefore unable to challenge the court’s ruling on diversion on appeal. Appellate counsel thereafter filed a new opening brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We will review this case with the limitations of section 1237.5 in mind. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Richard Bertuglia pleaded guilty to a violation of section 273.5, subd. (a) and admitted a strike prior (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)). The court sentenced appellant to six years in prison. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal but did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. Appellate has now filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 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 appellant the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. This appeal is based on a judgment based on a guilty plea. We will not include a statement of facts in this opinion. DISCUSSION When appellate counsel filed a Wende brief, counsel identified several possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this 1 Further statutory references are to the Penal Code. appeal. The possible issues identified by counsel are submitted in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders). Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain a certificate of probable cause. Whether counsel was ineffective for not pursuing a writ of mandamus to compel issuance of a certificate of probable cause or filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus. If a certificate of probable cause could be issued, would the record show the trial court abused its discretion in denying mental health diversion. We have independently reviewed the record for error as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issue for reversal on this record. Competent counsel has represented appellant in this appeal. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.* WE CONCUR:

DATO, 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