People v. Sanchez CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D087334 · 2026-07-10 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. BAF1500234
Trial judge: Otis Sterling III
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: William S. Dato (author), Julia C. Kelety

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T03:18Z · confidence high

The trial court accepted the appellants' guilty pleas and imposed stipulated sentences of 21 years to life for Sanchez and 15 years to life for Moreno. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgments after an independent review of the record under People v. Wende, finding no arguable issues for reversal.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Acceptance of guilty pleas and imposition of stipulated sentences “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	correct	agree with court The court applied the standard Wende/Anders review, which requires an independent examination of the record for any arguable error. The court found the pleas were valid and the sentences appropriate based on the stipulations, leading to an affirmation.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to file a brief identifying potential issues and the court to independently review the record for error when counsel finds no arguable issues.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the federal constitutional framework for appointed counsel in criminal appeals who find no arguable issues, requiring a brief and court review.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it strictly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for cases where appointed counsel identifies no arguable issues. It correctly notes the independent review was conducted and no errors 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

After a 2019 jury conviction was set aside on a new-trial motion, the trial court in 2025 accepted guilty pleas from Sanchez (attempted murder and assault by force likely to cause great bodily injury) and Moreno (attempted murder) under a joint plea agreement and imposed stipulated sentences of 21 years to life and 15 years to life respectively. On appeal, appointed counsel for both defendants filed Wende briefs identifying no arguable issues, the defendants filed nothing, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed both judgments.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Acceptance of Moreno's and Sanchez's guilty pleas, including whether each was properly advised of his constitutional rights before pleading “was properly advised of his rights prior to pleading guilty.”	unclear	correct	unsure The court conducted an independent Wende/Anders review and found no arguable issue regarding the advisements. The opinion recites no record facts about the plea colloquy or waiver forms, so the conclusion cannot be independently verified from the opinion, but nothing in the opinion suggests error, and a Wende affirmance after no-issue briefing is the standard disposition.
Finding of a factual basis for Sanchez's guilty pleas “before pleading guilty and whether there was a factual basis for the guilty”	unclear	correct	unsure Counsel flagged factual basis as a possible issue; the court's independent review found nothing arguable. The opinion does not describe the stipulated factual basis or the plea form, so there is no basis in the opinion to disagree, but also none to confirm.
Imposition of stipulated sentences of 21 years to life (Sanchez) and 15 years to life (Moreno) “Sanchez was sentenced to a stipulated term of 21 years to life in prison.”	unclear	correct	agree with court Sentences were stipulated terms under a negotiated plea; a defendant who agrees to a specified sentence generally cannot challenge it on appeal absent a certificate of probable cause. The court found no arguable sentencing issue, which is consistent with a stipulated-term disposition.

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 frivolous must so advise the court and identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal to assist the court's review.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the standard Wende procedure, identifies the issues counsel flagged, and states the court independently reviewed the record and found no arguable issues, which is a defensible result for an appeal from stipulated-sentence guilty pleas. It does not, however, mention whether either defendant obtained a certificate of probable cause under Penal Code section 1237.5, which bears directly on whether the plea-validity issues counsel identified were even cognizable, and it recites no facts from the plea colloquy or record supporting its conclusions.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 7/10/26 P. v. Sanchez 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, D087334

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. BAF1500234)

v. ANDRE MARSALIS SANCHEZ et al., Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Otis Sterling, III, Judge. Affirmed. James M. Kehoe, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Andre Marsalis Sanchez. Marta I. Stanton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant David A. Almeras-Moreno. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent. Andre Marsalis Sanchez and David A. Almeras-Moreno were charged with several offenses, including attempted murder of a Sheriff’s Deputy in 2016. They were convicted following a jury trial in 2019. The trial court granted the appellants’ request for a new trial and set aside the convictions. In 2025, Sanchez and Moreno entered into a joint plea agreement with stipulated sentences. Moreno pleaded guilty to attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664 and 187). Sanchez pleaded guilty to attempted murder and to assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)). Sanchez was sentenced to a stipulated term of 21 years to life in prison. Moreno was sentenced to a stipulated term of 15 years to life in prison. Both appellants have filed timely notices of appeal. Counsel have been appointed for both Sanchez and Moreno, and each counsel has filed briefs in this appeal. The briefs filed by both counsel are filed under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating counsel have not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Both counsel have asked the court to independently review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered each appellant the opportunity to file their own brief in this appeal. Neither appellant has responded to our notice. DISCUSSION As we have noted, both counsel have filed a brief under the authority of Wende indicating appellate counsel have not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Both counsel ask the court to independently review the record for error as mandated by Wende. To assist the court in its review of the record and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) counsel have identified possible issues that have been considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal.

2 Appellant Moreno submits there is a possible question whether Moreno was properly advised of his rights prior to pleading guilty. Appellant Sanchez asks whether he was properly advised of his rights before pleading guilty and whether there was a factual basis for the guilty pleas. 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 have represented each appellant in this case. DISPOSITION The judgment as to each appellant in this case is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J. WE CONCUR:

DATO, Acting P. J.

KELETY, 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