People v. Rogers CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Bernardino County · No. FVI24000556
- Trial judge
- Rasheed S. Alexander
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Buchanan (author), Michele M. Castillo
Analysis
The trial court accepted Rogers's no contest pleas to assault on a spouse and child abuse, imposed a stipulated nine-year sentence, and denied his request for a certificate of probable cause. 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 request for certificate of probable cause“Rogers filed a timely notice of appeal and requested a certificate of probable cause, which the court denied.” | unclear | not reached | unsure The appellate court did not explicitly analyze the trial court's denial of the certificate of probable cause in its discussion, instead focusing on the Wende review of the record for error. The opinion lists this as a potential issue considered by counsel but does not provide a specific ruling on its merit in the final disposition or discussion section. |
Judgment of conviction and sentence“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 conducted an independent review of the entire record as mandated by People v. Wende. It found no arguable issues for reversal, thereby affirming the judgment. The court did not identify specific errors in the trial court's proceedings or sentencing. |
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 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel who believes an appeal is frivolous, requiring a brief identifying potential issues and an independent court review.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for indigent appeals where counsel finds no arguable issues. It explicitly states that the court performed the required independent review of the record and found no errors, which is the standard outcome for such cases.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court accepted Rogers's no contest pleas to assault on a spouse or cohabitant with a great bodily injury admission and child abuse, imposed the stipulated nine-year prison term, and denied his request for a certificate of probable cause. On appeal, counsel filed a Wende brief, Rogers filed nothing, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed the judgment.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Judgment of conviction on no contest pleas and imposition of the stipulated nine-year prison sentence“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.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The court followed the Wende/Anders procedure: counsel filed a no-issue brief identifying possible issues, the defendant was invited to file a supplemental brief and did not, and the court independently reviewed the record. With a stipulated sentence, a factual basis stipulated from the preliminary hearing transcript, and no certificate of probable cause, there is nothing in the opinion suggesting a cognizable post-plea error, so the conclusion is supported on this record. |
Denial of Rogers's request for a certificate of probable cause“Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Rogers’s request for a certificate of probable cause.” | unclear | correct | unsure The opinion lists the certificate denial as one of counsel's possible issues but does not analyze it separately; the court's blanket finding of no arguable issue necessarily treats the denial as not a basis for reversal. Because the opinion does not state the grounds urged for the certificate or the court's reasons for denying it, I cannot independently confirm the ruling, though nothing in the opinion points to an error. |
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 to determine whether any arguable issue exists.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous may so advise the court and request to withdraw, accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion correctly applies the Wende/Anders procedure, recites the facts and procedural history, lists the issues counsel flagged, and states that an independent record review disclosed no arguable issue. It does not separately explain why the certificate-of-probable-cause and ineffective-assistance issues are not cognizable or arguable, which is a minor gap but typical of Wende dispositions.
Opinion
Filed 6/18/26 P. v. Rogers 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, D087603
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. FVI24000556)
AALIM ZAAHIR ROGERS,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, Rasheed S. Alexander, Judge. Affirmed. Justine Eva Li Villanueva, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Aalim Zaahir Rogers entered into a plea agreement with a stipulated sentence. Rogers entered no contest pleas to assault on a spouse or cohabitant (Pen. Code,1 § 273.5, subd. (a)) and admitted he caused great bodily injury, and child abuse (§ 273a, subd. (a)).
1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code. Rogers was sentenced to a total term of nine years in prison, as stipulated by the parties. Rogers filed a timely notice of appeal and requested a certificate of probable cause, which the court denied. 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 offered Rogers the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. STATEMENT OF FACTS Counsel has included a brief summary of the stipulated facts of the offenses. We will include it in this opinion for background information. Rogers stipulated that a factual basis for his plea could be found in the reporter’s transcript of the preliminary hearing. According to the testimony presented at the preliminary hearing, on or about February 25, 2024, Rogers’s ex-girlfriend went to Rogers’s home to pick up her daughter who was in Rogers’s care. At Rogers’s doorstep, Rogers and his ex-girlfriend argued. Rogers’s wife came out of the house and she and the ex-girlfriend started fighting. Rogers’s brother also came out and slammed the ex-girlfriend on the ground. Rogers’s mother arrived at the scene. The ex- girlfriend testified that, at this point, Rogers said, “I’m tired of this b***h!,” pulled a gun, and fired a shot. The ex-girlfriend thought Rogers had shot her daughter who was also in proximity. She picked up her daughter and drove to the hospital. The ex-girlfriend soon thereafter realized Rogers had shot her hand, not her daughter, and the blood was hers, not her daughter’s. The ex-girlfriend had an emergency surgery performed to reconstruct her hand. 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 and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 counsel has identified three possible issues that were considered in evaluating the merits of this appeal. 1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Rogers’s request for a certificate of probable cause. 2. Whether the evidence in the record supports a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel. 3. Can Rogers raise ineffective assistance of counsel after a no contest plea and after the trial court denied a certificate of probable cause? 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 Rogers in this appeal. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. HUFFMAN, J.* WE CONCUR:
BUCHANAN, Acting P. J.
CASTILLO, 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