People v. Guadarrama CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCN295594, CN312115
- Trial judge
- Kimberlee A. Lagotta
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Judith L. Haller (author), McINTYRE, Patricia D. Benke
Analysis
The trial court accepted appellant's guilty pleas and sentenced him to probation with a 180-day custody stipulation in one case and immediate sentencing in a subsequent case. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after finding no reasonably arguable issues on independent review.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Affirmance of the judgment following a Wende/Anders review“A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue.” | de novo | not reached | agree with court The court applied the standard Wende/Anders review to determine if the record contained any reasonably arguable issues. It found none and affirmed the judgment. The reasoning is consistent with established procedure for appointed counsel appeals where no issues are identified. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to conduct an independent review of the record for error when no issues are presented.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to file a brief identifying no meritorious issues while requesting independent court review.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol by noting counsel's review and the court's independent examination of the record. It concludes that no reasonably arguable issues exist, which is the standard outcome for such procedural appeals where the record is unremarkable.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court accepted appellant's guilty pleas in two cases, granted probation with stipulated custody terms, awarded presentence credits, and imposed fines, fees, and $248 victim restitution, later sentencing him per a second plea bargain after admitted probation violations. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief raising no issues, appellant filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issue, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Acceptance of guilty pleas and imposition of sentence in accordance with the plea agreements (probation, stipulated 180-day custody terms, credits, fines, fees, and victim restitution)“A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue.” | unclear | correct | agree with court This is a Wende/Anders independent review of the record following guilty pleas. The opinion recites that counsel examined whether the sentences conformed to the plea agreements and whether the pleas were free and voluntary, and the court found no arguable issue. Nothing in the opinion's recitation of the record (stipulated custody terms, probation, credits, restitution) suggests an error, and the court followed the required Wende procedure, including offering appellant the chance to file his own brief. The opinion does not disclose whether a certificate of probable cause was obtained, but since no plea-validity issue was found, that does not affect the result. |
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 may so advise the court and request to withdraw, submitting a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
The appellate opinion: sound — The court followed the required Wende/Anders procedure: it summarized the facts and proceedings, noted counsel's review of plea voluntariness and sentencing conformity, invited appellant to file his own brief, and independently reviewed the record. The opinion is brief and conclusory, as is typical for Wende dispositions, so it cannot be fully audited, but nothing in the recited record suggests an arguable issue was overlooked.
Opinion
Filed 10/28/13 P. v. Guadarrama 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, D063273
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. Nos. SCN295594, CN312115) JUAN GUADARRAMA, Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Kimberlee A. Lagotta, Judge. Affirmed.
Patrick J. Hennessey, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Appellant Juan Guadarrama pled guilty in case number SCN295594 to grand theft from a person (Pen. Code, § 4871, subdivision (c)), misdemeanor battery (§ 242), and willful disobedience of a court order (§ 166, subd. (a)(4)), and stipulated to 180 days in 1 Subsequent unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code. custody as a condition of formal probation. At sentencing, appellant was granted probation, given credit for 145 days of presentence credits, and ordered to pay various fines and fees, including victim restitution of $248.
Twelve months after sentencing in case number SCN295594, appellant pled guilty in case number CN312115 to resisting arrest, a misdemeanor, and was sentenced immediately. (§ 148, subd. (a)(1).) Appellant stipulated to 180 days in custody to be served concurrently with probation violations he admitted in case numbers SCN295594 and CN302133.2 Appellant was sentenced in accordance with the plea bargain.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Case number SCN2955943 involves two separate incidents, both occurring in August 2011. The battery count arises from an incident at Fry's Electronics. Appellant left the store concealing merchandize he had not paid for and, when confronted by loss prevention officers, ran from them and into an elderly woman, knocking her to the ground.
The other two counts arise from an incident at a Circle K store. In response to appellant harassing store employees, stealing items and physically confronting the store owner, the owner had obtained a temporary restraining order against appellant. The order required him to stay 100 yards from the owner, the owner's vehicle and place of business.
Thereafter, the owner saw appellant outside his store. Acting at the request of the owner, 2 At the time of sentencing, appellant was also on probation in case number CN302133, but information about that case is not included in this record.
3 The facts are taken from the probation report. 2 the assistant manager walked outside and gave the order to appellant. He read the paperwork and walked away. Appellant later returned to the store, threw the paperwork at the assistant manager, grabbed a bag of chips and left. Police who responded to the scene arrested appellant as he was approaching the front door of the Circle K.
In case number CN3121154 appellant admitted he willfully and unlawfully delayed a peace officer who appears to have arrested him for being under the influence of a controlled substance.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief setting forth the facts and proceedings below. Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks that this court review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel has not identified any possible appellate issues, but does note he has specifically reviewed whether appellant was sentenced in accordance with the terms of his plea agreements and entered his pleas freely and voluntarily.
We granted Guadarrama permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded.
A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Competent counsel has represented Guadarrama on this appeal.
4 The facts are taken from the change of plea form. 3 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.
HALLER, J.
WE CONCUR:
BENKE, Acting P. J.
MCINTYRE, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12