People v. Jacquett CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D086472 · 2026-06-10 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial judge: Theodore M. Weathers
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: William S. Dato (author), Buchanan

Analysis

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

The trial court accepted a guilty plea and imposed an agreed sentence of 18 years and 8 months for attempted murder. 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
Affirmance of the judgment following a Wende/Anders review “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.”	de novo	not reached	agree with court The court applied the standard Wende/Anders review, which requires the appellate court to independently examine the record for any arguable issues of error. The court found none, leading to affirmance. This is the standard procedure for such appeals.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appellate counsel to file a brief identifying arguable issues or, if none exist, to request the court to independently review the record for error.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to file a brief identifying arguable issues or, if none exist, to request the court to independently review the record for error.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for reviewing a case where appellate counsel identifies no arguable issues. The court explicitly states it conducted the required independent review and found no errors, which is the appropriate disposition for this type of appeal.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:09Z · confidence low

The trial court accepted Jacquett's guilty plea to attempted murder with admissions of an aggravating factor, on-bail status, and great bodily injury, and imposed the stipulated sentence of 18 years eight months. On appeal, counsel filed a Wende brief, Jacquett filed a supplemental brief alleging ineffective assistance and a coerced plea, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Entry of judgment on guilty plea with stipulated 18-year-eight-month sentence, including imposition of the upper term on count 1 based on the admitted aggravating factor “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.”	de novo	correct	agree with court Independent Wende/Anders review of a stipulated-sentence plea is the correct procedure, and an admitted aggravating factor satisfies section 1170(b) for an upper term; nothing in the opinion suggests error, but the opinion recites no record detail, so the conclusion cannot be independently verified.
Rejection of Jacquett's supplemental-brief claims that counsel was ineffective and that he was pressured into pleading guilty and making admissions “Jacquett does not identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal based upon this record.”	unclear	correct	agree with court Claims of coercion and ineffective assistance attacking a plea's validity generally require a certificate of probable cause under section 1237.5 and typically rest on matters outside the record, so rejection on this record is defensible; however, the court gave almost no reasoning and did not mention the certificate requirement.

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 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal frivolous should identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal to assist the court's review.
missed: People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 — In a Wende appeal where the defendant files a supplemental brief, the appellate opinion should set out the defendant's contentions and explain why they fail; the opinion here only summarily states that no arguable issues were identified.
missed: People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68 — A challenge to the validity of a guilty plea, including a stipulated sentence that is an integral part of the plea, requires a certificate of probable cause under Penal Code section 1237.5; the opinion does not address whether Jacquett's coerced-plea claim was cognizable.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court followed the Wende/Anders procedure and reached a defensible result on a stipulated-sentence plea with admitted enhancements. It did not, however, explain why the supplemental-brief claims of coercion and ineffective assistance fail or address the certificate-of-probable-cause requirement for attacks on a plea's validity, and it supplied no record facts.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 6/10/26 P. v. Jacquett 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, D086472

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD302832)

TYRICE JACQUETT,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court for San Diego County, Theodore M. Weathers, Judge. Affirmed. Tyrice Jacquett, in pro. per.; and Susan S. Baugess, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Tyrice Jacquett entered into a plea agreement with stipulated admissions and an agreed sentence. He pleaded guilty to attempted murder in count 1 (Pen. Code,1 §§ 664 & 187, subd. (a)). Jacquett admitted an aggravating factor which would authorize an upper term sentence. Jacquett admitted being on bail at the time of the crime and admitted inflicting great 1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code. bodily injury. He also agreed he would receive a consecutive term from a different case. The parties agreed that the total sentence would be 18 years eight months. Jacquett was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement. Jacquett filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has 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 notified Jacquett of his right to file his own brief on appeal. He has responded by filing a supplemental brief. In his supplemental brief, Jacquett complains his counsel was ineffective and that he was pressured into pleading guilty and making the various admissions he did make. Jacquett does not identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal based upon this record. The judgment in this case is based on a guilty plea with a stipulated sentence. We will not include a statement of facts based on the plea. 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, counsel has identified several possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal. 1. Whether the court failed to consider mental health diversion for Jacquett. 2. Whether the court properly imposed the upper term sentence for count 1 based on Jacquette’s admission of an aggravating factor.

2 3. Whether the court improperly considered a prior prison term sentence as an aggravating factor for count 1. 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 Jacquett in this appeal. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.* WE CONCUR:

DATO, Acting P. J.

BUCHANAN, 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