People v. Glenn CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D086558 · 2026-07-06 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCE428339
Trial judge: Marian F. Gaston
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: O'Rourke (author), William S. Dato

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T03:19Z · confidence low

The trial court revoked Glenn's probation following a finding of violation and imposed a suspended sentence with a 556-day jail term. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record under Wende found no arguable issues for reversal.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Probation revocation and imposition of 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	not reached	unsure The opinion is a Wende brief where the court states it has not discovered any arguable issues for reversal. It does not explicitly state the standard of review (e.g., substantial evidence) or provide a detailed analysis of the trial court's specific findings, only that the independent review yielded no errors.

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 representation after filing a brief identifying potential issues for the court's independent review.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is a standard Wende review where the court affirms based on a lack of arguable issues. It is procedurally sound but provides no substantive legal analysis of the underlying probation revocation.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:29Z · confidence low

The trial court revoked Thomas Glenn's probation after a hearing, declined to reinstate probation, and executed the previously suspended sentences, ordering 556 days in jail with the balance on mandatory supervision under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (h)(5)(B). On appeal, counsel filed a Wende brief, Glenn filed nothing, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Finding that Glenn violated the terms of his probation “whether the court properly found Glenn to be in violation of the terms of his probation; and whether the court erred in refusing to reinstate Glenn on probation.”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion recites no facts about the violation or the evidence at the revocation hearing; it states only that counsel flagged the issue under Anders and that independent review disclosed no arguable error. Without any record detail, the result cannot be checked, though nothing in the opinion suggests error.
Refusal to reinstate Glenn on probation and execution of the suspended sentences with mandatory supervision “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	unsure Reinstatement of probation is ordinarily a discretionary decision, and the court gave no description of the trial court's reasons or the record. The appellate court's Wende review is the proper procedure and its conclusion is plausible, but the opinion supplies no facts from which an independent reader can confirm it.

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 error before affirming.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal lacks merit should file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal to assist the court's review.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion follows the standard Wende/Anders procedure: counsel identified possible issues, the defendant was invited to file his own brief, and the court independently reviewed the record and found no arguable issues. The result is defensible and the procedure correct, though the opinion is wholly conclusory and recites no facts about the revocation hearing.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 7/6/26 P. v. Glenn 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, D086558

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SCE428339)

THOMAS GLENN,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Marian F. Gaston, Judge. Affirmed. Michelle C. Rogers, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent. In November 2024, Thomas Glenn entered into a plea agreement in which he pleaded guilty to one count of transportation of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)). The parties agreed to a stipulated sentence. The court imposed an upper term of five years but suspended the execution of sentence and granted Glenn formal probation. The court also found Glenn violated a probation grant in a separate case No. SCN4465533. The court imposed a suspended three-year term in that case. Following a preliminary hearing in case No. SCD307077, the court held a hearing and revoked Glenn’s probation. The court imposed suspended sentences. The court ordered Glenn to serve 556 days in jail and the remainder of his sentence to be served in mandatory supervision under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (h)(5)(B). Glenn filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) 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 advised Glenn of his right 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 (Anders) counsel has identified two possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: whether the court properly found Glenn to be in violation of the terms of his probation; and whether the court erred in refusing to reinstate Glenn on probation. 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 Glenn in this appeal.

2 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.* WE CONCUR:

O’ROURKE, Acting P. J.

DATO, 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. 3

Cites, in this corpus

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