People v. Similla CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D085486 · 2026-06-22 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD303258
Trial judge: Rachel Cano
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Laurence D. Rubin (author), Michele M. Castillo, Julia C. Kelety

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T03:20Z · confidence low

The trial court revoked Similla's probation based on evidence presented at a preliminary hearing for a separate criminal threat case and sentenced him to three years in prison. The appellate court affirmed the judgment after an independent review under People v. Wende found no arguable issues on appeal.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Probation revocation “Based on that same evidence, the trial court formally revoked Similla’s probation.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The opinion does not explicitly state the standard of review for the probation revocation. The court notes that counsel identified the notice issue as a potential error, but the court's independent review found no arguable issues, implying the revocation was procedurally and substantively sound under the applicable standards (e.g., substantial evidence).
Notice of probation violation “whether the trial court erred in overruling Similla’s inadequate notice objection prior to the parole revocation hearing.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The court considered the potential issue of inadequate notice identified by counsel but concluded it did not rise to the level of an arguable issue warranting reversal. The opinion does not provide specific legal analysis for why the notice was sufficient, only that the independent review found no error.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires independent review of the record by appellate counsel when no issues are raised in the opening brief.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires independent review of the record by appellate counsel when no issues are raised in the opening brief.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it follows the required Wende/Anders protocol for no-issue appeals. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' opinion because it provides no substantive legal analysis for the specific potential issue (notice) identified by counsel, merely stating that no arguable issues were found after independent review.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:00Z · confidence low

The trial court revoked Michael Similla's probation on his guilty-plea assault conviction (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)) after a combined preliminary/revocation hearing on a new criminal-threat charge, and sentenced him to three years in prison. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief identifying only a possible inadequate-notice issue, Similla 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
Judgment of conviction, formal revocation of probation, and imposition of a three-year prison sentence following the combined preliminary/probation revocation hearing “We find no arguable issue that would result in a reversal or modification of the judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The court followed the Wende/Anders procedure: counsel filed a no-issue brief, the defendant was notified of his right to file a supplemental brief and did not, and the court conducted an independent review of the entire record, including the augmented record from the companion case. The opinion recites the facts and procedural history and the issue counsel flagged, and the recited facts (revocation based on sworn preliminary-hearing testimony that Similla pointed knives at a victim and threatened to kill her) show nothing on their face indicating error. Because the appeal followed a guilty plea without a certificate of probable cause, review was properly limited to post-plea matters.
Overruling Similla's objection that he received inadequate notice before the probation revocation hearing “whether the trial court erred in overruling Similla’s inadequate notice objection prior to the parole revocation hearing.”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion recites that the October 10, 2024 complaint expressly stated its dual purpose of seeking a holding order and probation revocation based on the preliminary-hearing evidence, that an order to show cause issued the same day, and that the hearing was held October 23, 2024, which on these facts suggests notice of the alleged violation and the hearing was given. However, the opinion gives no analysis of the objection or the applicable due-process notice standards and simply states no arguable issue exists, so the reader cannot independently verify the conclusion; the opinion also mislabels the hearing as a 'parole' revocation hearing, though it was plainly a probation revocation.

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 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, and the court must then conduct its own examination of the record.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court correctly applied the Wende/Anders independent-review procedure, provided the required recitation of facts, procedure, and the issue identified by counsel, and reached a result consistent with the facts recited. It offered no explanation of why the inadequate-notice objection lacks arguable merit and misdescribed the proceeding as a parole revocation, leaving the reader unable to evaluate the one flagged issue beyond the recited chronology.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 6/22/26 P. v. Similla 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, D085486

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD303258)

MICHAEL SIMILLA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Rachel Cano, Judge. Affirmed. Charles Thomas Anderson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Michael Similla appeals from his assault conviction. His appointed appellate counsel filed an opening brief raising no arguable issues pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738. Similla did not file supplemental briefing on his own behalf. Our independent review confirms there are no arguable issues on appeal. We therefore affirm the conviction.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On April 23, 2024, police officers arrested Similla for assaulting a security guard with a knife. On May 6, 2024, Similla pleaded guilty to assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)). The trial court suspended imposition of Similla’s sentence and granted him two years’ formal probation. The terms of Similla’s probation required, among other things, that he report to the probation department within 72 hours of his release from custody and that he obey all laws and not possess any weapons.

On August 16, 2024, in response to a probation department report that Similla failed to report after being released from custody, the trial court summarily revoked probation and issued a bench warrant for Similla’s arrest. On October 10, 2024, the San Diego County District Attorney’s Office filed a complaint against Similla in a separate case (case No. CD305153) alleging one count of making a criminal threat. That complaint notified Similla of its dual purposes, which were to obtain (1) a holding order for the new case and (2) revocation of Similla’s probation utilizing the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing in case number CD305153. That same day, the trial court issued order to show cause on the probation violation to be heard with case number CD305153. On October 23, 2024, the trial court conducted the preliminary hearing in case number CD305153 in conjunction with the probation revocation hearing.1 After hearing testimony that Similla pointed two knives at a victim and threatened to kill her, the trial court held Similla to answer for trial in case number CD305153. Based on that same evidence, the trial court formally revoked Similla’s probation. On November 20, 2024, the trial court sentenced Similla to three years in prison for his assault conviction in this case. Similla timely appealed. Similla requested a certificate of probable cause, which the trial court denied. Pursuant to that ruling, this court held that the issues in this appeal are limited to matters occurring after Simila’s guilty plea that do not involve prior strike convictions and the stipulated sentence, other than as set forth in Penal Code section 1016.8. Similla’s appointed appellate counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking us to review the record for error under Wende and Anders. Counsel identified one potential issue to assist us in our independent review: whether the trial court erred in overruling Similla’s inadequate notice objection prior to the parole revocation hearing. Similla has not filed supplemental briefing despite his counsel and this court informing him of his right to do so.

DISCUSSION

We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders, and we considered the issue identified by Similla’s counsel. We find no arguable issue that would result in a reversal or modification of the judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment. Competent counsel represented Similla in this appeal.

1 Similla’s request that we augment the record to include the complaint and any amendments from case number CD305153 and the reporter’s transcript from the October 23, 2024 hearing is granted. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

RUBIN, J.

WE CONCUR:

KELETY, Acting P. J.

CASTILLO, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12