People v. Connolly CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD30593218, 2024, 11351, 20201170,
- Trial judge
- Laura H. Parsky
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Julia C. Kelety (author), Truc T. Do, Buchanan
Analysis
The trial court convicted the defendant of possession for sale of a controlled substance and sentenced him to four years in prison after denying a Romero motion but finding psychological trauma under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (b)(6). 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of Romero motion and sentencing to four years (low term doubled for strike)“At sentencing, the court denied Connolly’s Romero motion. The court found that Connolly had established psychological trauma as contemplated by Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (b)(6) and sentenced Connolly to the low term of two years, doubled for the strike, for a total of four years in prison.” | unclear | not reached | unsure The appellate court conducted a general Wende review but did not specifically analyze the sentencing or the denial of the Romero motion, stating it found no arguable issues for reversal. |
Admission of expert testimony regarding interrupted sale“Detective Richard Page testified as an expert that Connolly’s conduct as observed by the officers, together with the totality of other circumstances, was consistent with an interrupted hand-to-hand narcotics sale.” | unclear | not reached | unsure Counsel identified this as a potential issue, but the court stated it had not discovered any arguable issues for reversal after independent review, implying the evidence was sufficient or the error, if any, was harmless. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to independently review the record for error when no arguable issues are identified.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to withdraw from an appeal by filing a brief identifying potential issues and requesting independent court review.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it follows the standard Wende/Anders protocol for reviewing appeals where counsel identifies no arguable issues. However, it provides no substantive legal analysis or reasoning for why the specific issue raised by counsel (expert testimony) was not reversible error, relying solely on the conclusion that no arguable issues were found.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionA San Diego jury convicted Randall Connolly of possession for sale of fentanyl (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351), he admitted a 2020 burglary strike prior, and the trial court denied his Romero motion but found psychological trauma under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (b)(6), imposing the low term of two years doubled to four years. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief identifying only the admissibility of the detective's expert opinion as a possible issue, Connolly 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
Admission of Detective Page's expert opinion that Connolly possessed a usable quantity of fentanyl for sale (the one possible issue flagged by counsel under Anders)“namely whether a detective was properly permitted to opine that appellant possessed a usable quantity of fentanyl for sale.” | unclear | correct | unsure The opinion does not state a standard of review or analyze the issue; it simply reports that independent Wende review disclosed no arguable issue. Expert testimony that circumstances are consistent with possession for sale is routinely admitted in California narcotics cases, and the facts recited (hand-to-hand sale observed, seven bindles, two phones, varied currency) support such an opinion, so the result is defensible, but the opinion provides no reasoning to evaluate. |
Denial of the Romero motion to strike the 2020 burglary strike prior“At sentencing, the court denied Connolly’s Romero motion.” | unclear | correct | unsure The appellate court did not discuss the Romero ruling beyond noting it in the procedural history and finding no arguable issue on independent review. Denial of a Romero motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion and is rarely reversible, especially where the prior is recent (2020) and the court mitigated the sentence by imposing the low term; nothing in the opinion suggests error, but there is no analysis to assess. |
Sentencing to the low term of two years under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (b)(6), doubled to four years for the strike“sentenced Connolly to the low term of two years, doubled for the strike, for a total of four years in prison.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The court found psychological trauma under section 1170(b)(6) and imposed the low term, which is the most favorable outcome for the defendant under that provision; doubling under the Three Strikes law is mandatory once the strike is admitted and not stricken. No error is apparent from the opinion's recitation. |
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 wholly frivolous must so advise the court and file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the Wende/Anders procedure, recites the facts and procedural history, identifies counsel's one possible issue, and states that independent review disclosed no arguable error, which is a defensible disposition on this record. It contains no substantive analysis of the expert-testimony issue, the Romero denial, or the sentence, and it misnames the defendant as 'Tunyan' when describing the offer to file a supplemental brief, a drafting error that does not affect the result.
Opinion
Filed 6/12/26 P. v. Connolly 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, D086380 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SCD305932 v. RANDALL CONNOLLY, Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Laura H. Parsky, Judge. Affirmed. Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent. On December 18, 2024, San Diego Police Officers Tyler Bajer and Adrian Rodriguez observed Randall Connolly as he was in the process of selling fentanyl to a purchaser in an area of downtown San Diego notorious for drug sales. After the arrest, officers found in Connolly’s possession two cell phones, currency in various denominations, and seven small foil bindles that were determined to contain usable quantities of fentanyl powder. Connolly was charged with possession for sale of a controlled substance, in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11351, together with an alleged strike prior for a 2020 burglary. At trial, Detective Richard Page testified as an expert that Connolly’s conduct as observed by the officers, together with the totality of other circumstances, was consistent with an interrupted hand-to-hand narcotics sale. Connolly testified that although he had fentanyl in his possession, it was intended for personal use and not for sale. The jury returned a guilty verdict. Connolly admitted to the strike prior. At sentencing, the court denied Connolly’s Romero motion. The court found that Connolly had established psychological trauma as contemplated by Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (b)(6) and sentenced Connolly to the low term of two years, doubled for the strike, for a total of four years in prison. Connolly timely appealed. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to 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 Tunyan the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. 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 one possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal, namely whether a detective was properly permitted to opine that appellant possessed a usable quantity of fentanyl for sale.
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 Connolly on this appeal.
2 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.
KELETY, J.
WE CONCUR:
DO, Acting P. J.
BUCHANAN, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12