People v. Parras CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D087246 · 2026-07-08 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD300472
Trial judge: David L. Berry
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Judith D. McConnell (author), O'Rourke

Analysis

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

The trial court accepted a guilty plea and sentenced the defendant to 15 years to life for murder plus a determinate term, advising him that his parole period would be for life. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent Wende review found no arguable issues for reversal.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Advice regarding lifetime parole eligibility “The court determined any parole period would be life. The court advised Parras the parole term would be life. Parras accepted that term.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The appellate court stated it did not discover any arguable issues for reversal, implying the advice was not erroneous or not a viable basis for appeal.
Award of conduct credits for determinate sentence “Whether the court erred in not awarding conduct credits for the determinate portion of the sentence.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The appellate court stated it did not discover any arguable issues for reversal, implying the failure to award credits was not erroneous or not a viable basis for appeal.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires independent review of the record by appellate counsel in cases where counsel files a brief identifying no issues.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires independent review of the record by appellate counsel in cases where counsel files a brief identifying no issues.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it follows the standard Wende/Anders protocol for independent review. However, it provides no substantive legal analysis for the two specific issues identified by counsel, merely stating that no arguable issues were found.

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 accepted Parras's guilty plea to murder, assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury, and grand theft, advised him that his parole term would be life, and imposed the stipulated sentence of 15 years to life plus two years eight months without conduct credits on the determinate term. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief identifying the parole advisement and conduct-credit issues, the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Advisement at the plea colloquy that Parras would be subject to lifetime parole, over the prosecutor's suggestion that the term would be three years “The prosecutor argued the term would be three years. The court determined any parole period would be life. The court advised Parras the parole term would be life. Parras accepted that term.”	unclear	correct	agree with court Penal Code section 3000.1, subdivision (a)(1) provides that a person sentenced to a life term for murder under section 187 is subject to parole for the remainder of life, so the trial court's advisement was accurate and the prosecutor's three-year figure was wrong. The opinion does not cite the statute but reaches the right result under Wende review; the record also shows Parras accepted the term, so no advisement error or prejudice appears.
Failure to award presentence conduct credits on the determinate portion of the sentence “Whether the court erred in not awarding conduct credits for the determinate portion of the sentence.”	unclear	correct	agree with court Penal Code section 2933.2, subdivision (c) bars any presentence conduct credit for a person convicted of murder, and published authority applies that bar to the entire sentence, including consecutive determinate terms for other counts. Denying conduct credits on the determinate term was therefore lawful, and the appellate court's finding of no arguable issue is consistent with the statute.
Entry of judgment on the negotiated plea with the stipulated sentence (reviewed under Wende/Anders independent review) “We have independently reviewed the record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The sentence imposed matched the stipulated plea agreement, a factual basis was stated on the record, and defendant did not file a supplemental brief after notice. Nothing in the opinion suggests an error in the plea or sentencing, and the court followed the Wende procedure of independent review.

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 file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, and the court must then examine the record itself.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court followed the Wende/Anders procedure, described the plea, sentence, factual basis, and the two issues counsel flagged, and correctly concluded neither the lifetime parole advisement (Pen. Code, § 3000.1) nor the denial of conduct credits (Pen. Code, § 2933.2) presents an arguable issue. The opinion is sound for a Wende disposition but offers no statutory analysis or citation explaining why the two identified issues lack merit, and does not mention whether a certificate of probable cause was obtained for a plea-based appeal.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 7/8/26 P. v. Parras 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, D087246

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SCD300472)

ARMANDO MANUEL PARRAS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, David L. Berry, Judge. Affirmed. Jill Kent, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent. Armando Manual Parras entered into a plea agreement with a stipulated sentence. Parras pleaded guilty to murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187), assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)), and 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. grand theft (§ 487, subd. (a)). Parras stipulated to a sentence of 15 years to life for murder plus a determinate term of two years eight months. During the discussion of the plea agreement, the court and the prosecutor discussed the length of time Parras would possibly be on parole. The prosecutor argued the term would be three years. The court determined any parole period would be life. The court advised Parras the parole term would be life. Parras accepted that term. The court sentenced Parras consistent with the plea agreement. Parras 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). We notified Parras he could file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded to our notice. STATEMENT OF FACTS The convictions in this case are based on a plea agreement. As a factual basis for the plea, Parras made the following statement: “On August 30, 2023, I personally used a knife to stab and kill Joshua Goodman with malice aforethought but no premeditation or deliberation and when I acted, I did so with conscious disregard for human life. On August 21, 2023 I took the personal property of Ms. Cusano in excess of $950.00 and on December 22, 2023 I unlawfully assaulted Mr. Soto by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury.” DISCUSSION As we have noted, 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:

2 Whether the court erred in advising appellant he would be subject to lifetime parole. Whether the court erred in not awarding conduct credits for the determinate portion of the sentence. We have independently reviewed the record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Parras in this appeal. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J. WE CONCUR:

MCCONNELL, P. J.

O’ROURKE, 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