People v. Aguilar CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from judgments
- Trial court
- Superior Court of Imperial County · No. JCF007503, JCF008626
- Trial judges
- Monica Lepe-Negrete; Christopher Plourd
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- delinquency
- Panel
- Buchanan (author), William S. Dato, Julia C. Kelety
Analysis
The trial court revoked Aguilar's probation and sentenced him to four years in state prison, and separately accepted his no-contest plea to possession of a dirk or dagger with a 16-month concurrent sentence. The Court of Appeal affirmed both judgments after an independent Wende/Anders review found no arguable issues.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Judgment of four years in state prison imposed after revocation of probation for assault with a deadly weapon (Case No. JCF007503)“On March 26, 2025, the court declined to reinstate probation and sentenced Aguilar to the previously suspended sentence of four years in state prison.” | unclear | not reached | unsure The opinion is a Wende/Anders review where counsel raised no arguable issues. The court states it conducted an independent review and found no arguable issue that would result in modification or reversal, but it does not analyze the specific merits of the probation revocation or the underlying sentencing calculation in detail. |
Judgment of 16 months concurrent sentence imposed after guilty plea to possession of a dirk or dagger (Case No. JCF008626)“The court sentenced Aguilar to the agreed term of 16 months concurrent with the four-year sentence imposed in the probation revocation case.” | unclear | not reached | unsure Similar to the first judgment, the appellate court affirmed based on a Wende/Anders review finding no arguable issues. It did not provide a specific legal analysis of the plea or the sentence itself, only noting that counsel identified the definition of 'dirk or dagger' as a potential but not arguable issue. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to review the record for arguable issues when no issues are raised in the brief.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires counsel to file a brief identifying potential issues and request the court to review the record when no arguable issues are found.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as a Wende/Anders review, correctly identifying the procedural posture and the lack of arguable issues. However, it provides no substantive legal analysis of the underlying claims (ineffective assistance or statutory definition), relying solely on the conclusion that no arguable issues exist.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual disposition unusual dispositionThe Imperial County Superior Court revoked Aguilar's probation for assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury, denied his motion for a new revocation hearing premised on ineffective assistance of counsel, executed the suspended four-year upper-term prison sentence, and in a second case denied a section 995 motion and accepted his no contest plea to possession of a dirk or dagger for a concurrent 16-month term. On consolidated appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief identifying no arguable issues, Aguilar filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record and affirmed both judgments.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Finding of probation violation and revocation of probation following contested hearing held at the conclusion of the preliminary hearing in the new case“The court conducted a contested revocation hearing at the conclusion of the preliminary hearing for Aguilar’s new case arising from the January 2025 arrest. The court found Aguilar in violation and revoked his probation again.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The opinion states only that independent Wende review disclosed no arguable issue; it does not articulate the standard (which would be abuse of discretion for revocation, with a preponderance standard below) or discuss the evidence. The recited facts (failure to report within 48 hours of discharge from residential treatment, new arrest with a double-edged knife in his pocket) readily support a violation finding, so the result is defensible, but the opinion gives no reasoning to evaluate. |
Denial of motion for a new probation revocation hearing based on claimed ineffective assistance of prior counsel for failing to argue the knife was not a dirk or dagger“The court later heard Aguilar’s motion for a new probation revocation hearing based on a claim that his prior counsel was ineffective in failing to argue that the weapon Aguilar allegedly possessed in January 2025 did not meet the statutory definition of a dirk or dagger. The court denied the motion.” | unclear | correct | unsure The opinion identifies the ineffective-assistance and dirk-or-dagger definition questions as possible but not arguable issues and does not analyze them. Section 16470 defines a dirk or dagger as a knife capable of ready use as a stabbing weapon that may inflict great bodily injury; a knife with a double-sided blade carried in a pocket would ordinarily qualify, and the revocation also rested independently on the failure to report. Given the sparse record recited, the outcome appears defensible, but the opinion's silence on the analysis leaves the reader unable to verify it. |
Refusal to reinstate probation and execution of previously suspended four-year upper-term sentence“On March 26, 2025, the court declined to reinstate probation and sentenced Aguilar to the previously suspended sentence of four years in state prison.” | unclear | correct | agree with court When a suspended sentence has been imposed and probation is revoked, the court must order execution of the sentence previously imposed if it declines to reinstate probation (Pen. Code, § 1203.2, subd. (c)); the upper term had been supported by three admitted aggravating factors at the original plea. After two prior reinstatements and a third violation, declining reinstatement is well within discretion. The opinion does not analyze this, but no error appears from the facts recited. |
Denial without prejudice of section 995 motion to dismiss the information in the dirk-or-dagger case based on ineffective assistance at the preliminary hearing“Aguilar’s new counsel filed a motion to dismiss the information under section 995 and based on the same claim of ineffective assistance of counsel he asserted in the probation revocation case. The court held a hearing and denied the motion without prejudice.” | unclear | correct | agree with court Aguilar thereafter pled no contest. The opinion does not mention whether a certificate of probable cause was obtained under section 1237.5, and challenges to pre-plea rulings bearing on guilt are generally not cognizable after a no contest plea absent a certificate; a section 995 ruling is also reviewed only for whether the magistrate had some rational ground for holding to answer. On either view the ruling is not an arguable appellate issue, so the court's conclusion is sound even though unexplained. |
Acceptance of no contest plea to possession of a dirk or dagger and imposition of the agreed 16-month concurrent sentence“After sentencing on the probation revocation case, Aguilar waived his constitutional rights and pled no contest to possession of a dirk or dagger in in exchange for a 16-month concurrent sentence, with the balance of the charges dismissed.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The opinion recites a waiver of constitutional rights and a negotiated disposition that the court imposed as agreed; 16 months is the low term for a section 21310 felony and a defendant who receives the bargained sentence generally cannot challenge it. Nothing in the opinion suggests a defect in the plea colloquy, and Aguilar filed no supplemental brief. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel files a brief raising no arguable issues, the Court of Appeal must independently review the entire record and, finding no arguable issue, may affirm.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal to be without merit must so advise the court and refer to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, after which the court independently examines the record.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the standard Wende/Anders procedure: it recites the facts and procedural history, notes the possible issues counsel identified, confirms the appellant was invited to file a supplemental brief and did not, and affirms after independent review, consistent with People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 even though Kelly is not cited. It does not explain why the ineffective-assistance and dirk-or-dagger definition issues are not arguable, nor address whether a certificate of probable cause was obtained for the plea appeal, but those gaps do not undermine the result on the facts recited.
Opinion
Filed 6/16/26 P. v. Aguilar 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, D085787, D086633
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. Nos. JCF007503, JCF008626) LOUIE AGUILAR, JR., Defendant and Appellant.
APPEALS from judgments of the Superior Court of Imperial County, Monica Lepe-Negrete and Christopher Plourd, Judges. Affirmed. Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In this consolidated appeal, Louie Aguilar, Jr., appeals from (1) a judgment of four years in state prison imposed after revocation of his probation for assault with a deadly weapon; and (2) a separate judgment imposed after his guilty plea to possession of a dirk or dagger in another case. His appointed counsel filed a brief raising no arguable issues and requesting that we exercise our discretion to review the record for potential issues under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders). We have independently reviewed the record and find no arguable issue that would result in a modification or reversal of either judgment. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Case No. JCF007503 In December 2023, Aguilar was arrested for assaulting his mother and resisting arrest. In January 2024, Aguilar pled no contest to assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code,1 § 245, subd. (a)(4)) and admitted three factors in aggravation, in exchange for a grant of probation. At sentencing, the court placed Aguilar on formal probation for three years and imposed a suspended, upper-term sentence of four years. Aguilar admitted violating the terms of probation in April 2024 and again in August 2024. On both occasions, the court revoked and reinstated probation. In November 2024, the probation department filed a petition for revocation of probation after Aguilar allegedly failed to report to probation within 48 hours of being discharged from a residential treatment facility for rules violations. In an amended petition, the probation department further alleged that Aguilar had been arrested in January 2025 for felony possession of a dirk or dagger, misdemeanor resisting arrest, and possession of a smoking device. The court conducted a contested revocation hearing at the conclusion of the preliminary hearing for Aguilar’s new case arising from the January 2025 1 All further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2 arrest. The court found Aguilar in violation and revoked his probation again. Two weeks later, the court granted Aguilar’s Marsden motion and appointed new counsel to represent him on both cases. The court later heard Aguilar’s motion for a new probation revocation hearing based on a claim that his prior counsel was ineffective in failing to argue that the weapon Aguilar allegedly possessed in January 2025 did not meet the statutory definition of a dirk or dagger. The court denied the motion. On March 26, 2025, the court declined to reinstate probation and sentenced Aguilar to the previously suspended sentence of four years in state prison. Aguilar filed a notice of appeal. B. Case No. JCF008626 In January 2025, an El Centro police officer initiated a traffic stop of Aguilar, who was riding a bicycle and wearing a backpack. Aguilar got off his bicycle and tried to flee on foot. After apprehending him, the officer discovered some aluminum foil on the ground nearby. Inside the aluminum foil was one baggie of suspected methamphetamine and another of suspected fentanyl. Inside Aguilar’s backpack, the officer found a pipe used to smoke narcotics. In Aguilar’s left pocket, the officer found a knife with a double- sided blade. Aguilar was charged by complaint with possession of a dirk or dagger (Pen. Code, § 21310), misdemeanor resisting arrest (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)), and misdemeanor possession of a smoking device (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364, subd. (a)), with a strike prior (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)–(d)). In February 2025, the court conducted a preliminary hearing and held Aguilar to answer on the charges. The People filed an information. After the 3 court granted Aguilar’s Marsden motion and appointed new counsel for him on both cases, Aguilar’s new counsel filed a motion to dismiss the information under section 995 and based on the same claim of ineffective assistance of counsel he asserted in the probation revocation case. The court held a hearing and denied the motion without prejudice. After sentencing on the probation revocation case, Aguilar waived his constitutional rights and pled no contest to possession of a dirk or dagger in in exchange for a 16-month concurrent sentence, with the balance of the charges dismissed. The court sentenced Aguilar to the agreed term of 16 months concurrent with the four-year sentence imposed in the probation revocation case. Aguilar filed another notice of appeal. This court consolidated the two appeals. DISCUSSION Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below, arguing no specific contentions as grounds for relief, and asking this court to review the entire record for error as mandated by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d. 436. To assist the court in its review, and in compliance with Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, counsel identified the following possible but not arguable issues: (1) whether trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective at the preliminary hearing for case number JCF008626 and the probation revocation hearing for case number JCF007503; and (2) whether the item Aguilar possessed in the January 2025 incident satisfies the statutory definition of a dirk or dagger. We invited Aguilar to file a supplemental brief raising any additional contentions, but he did not do so. We have considered the potential issues identified by Aguilar’s appellate counsel and conducted an independent review of the record for 4 other arguable issues under Wende and Anders. Based on our review, we conclude there is no arguable issue that would result in a modification or reversal of either judgment. Aguilar is competently represented in this appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441–442.) DISPOSITION The judgments are affirmed.
BUCHANAN, J.
WE CONCUR:
DATO, Acting P. J.
KELETY, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12