People v. Harper CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D086897 · 2026-07-31 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCN308840
Trial judge: Blaine K. Bowman
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: O'Rourke (author), William S. Dato

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T03:17Z · confidence low

The trial court resentenced Harper, reducing the firearm enhancement to four years and denying custody credits for time spent out of custody pending trial. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record under Wende, finding no arguable issues for reversal.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of custody credits for time out of custody pending trial “The court found Harper was not entitled to custody credits for the time she was out of custody pending trial under section 1203.018, subdivisions (d)(1) and (3).”	unclear	not reached	unsure The appellate court conducted an independent review of the record as required by Wende and Anders but did not provide specific reasoning or analysis regarding the custody credit issue, stating only that it had not discovered any arguable issues for reversal. Because the opinion does not articulate the legal basis for affirming the trial court's denial, the standard of review and the specific legal conclusion are not explicitly stated in the text.
Imposition and stay of four-year mid-term sentence for firearm enhancement “Whether the trial court abused its discretion in imposing and staying a four-year mid-term sentence for the enhancement under section 12022.5, subdivision (a).”	abuse of discretion	not reached	unsure The appellate court identified this as a potential issue raised by counsel but did not provide specific analysis or reasoning in the opinion. It concluded generally that no arguable issues for reversal were found after independent review, leaving the specific application of the abuse of discretion standard unexplained in the text.

Authorities

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

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it follows the Wende/Anders protocol for independent review. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' opinion because it fails to provide any specific legal analysis or reasoning for why the identified issues (custody credits and sentencing discretion) were not arguable, relying solely on the general statement that 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

On remand after a prior appeal affirmed Harper's second degree murder conviction and firearm enhancement, the trial court resentenced her, reducing the section 12022.5, subdivision (a) term to a stayed four-year midterm, modifying fines and fees, and denying custody credits for the time she was out of custody pending trial under section 1203.018. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief; the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of presentence custody credits for the time Harper was out of custody pending trial under Penal Code section 1203.018, subdivisions (d)(1) and (3). “The court found Harper was not entitled to custody credits for the time she was out of custody pending trial under section 1203.018, subdivisions (d)(1) and (3).”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion identifies the credits question only as a potential Anders issue and resolves it by stating that independent Wende review disclosed no arguable issue; it does not describe whether Harper was on bail, electronic monitoring, or a home detention program, or analyze the statutory text. A defendant simply out of custody on bail is not in custody for section 2900.5 purposes, so the result is plausible, but the opinion gives no facts or reasoning permitting independent verification.
Imposition and stay of a four-year middle term for the personal use of a firearm enhancement under Penal Code section 12022.5, subdivision (a). “Whether the trial court abused its discretion in imposing and staying a four-year mid-term sentence for the enhancement under section 12022.5, subdivision (a).”	abuse of discretion	correct	agree with court Selecting the middle term is the presumptive choice and staying the section 12022.5 term where a section 12022.53, subdivision (d) enhancement is imposed is consistent with section 12022.53, subdivision (f); nothing in the opinion suggests an abuse of discretion, and the reduction from ten to four years benefited Harper. The court's conclusion is defensible, though it offers no analysis beyond the Wende finding.

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 wholly frivolous should so advise the court and identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court followed the Wende/Anders procedure, identified the two issues flagged by counsel, and stated it independently reviewed the record and found no arguable issue, which is all the procedure requires. It supplies no factual detail about Harper's pretrial status or legal analysis of the custody credit question, so the reader cannot confirm the correctness of that ruling from the opinion itself.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 7/31/26 P. v. Harper 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, D086897

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SCN308840)

v. JULIE E. HARPER, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Blaine K. Bowman, Judge. Affirmed. Lizabeth Weis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2012, Julie E. Harper was charged with the murder of her husband. She remained out of custody through two jury trials. She was convicted of second degree murder in 2015 and remanded into custody at that time. Harper was sentenced to prison for 15 years to life plus 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement under Penal Code1 section 12022.53, subdivision (d) plus 10 years for the personal use of a firearm under section 12022.5, subdivision (a), however, the punishment for the enhancement was stayed. In a nonpublished opinion, People v. Harper, D069632 (Jan. 5, 2018), we affirmed the conviction and the true finding on the enhancement under section 12022.53, subdivision (d). The case was then remanded to the trial court for resentencing. After the resentencing hearing, the court reduced the sentence for the personal use of a firearm to four years and modified the fines and fees that were imposed. The court found Harper was not entitled to custody credits for the time she was out of custody pending trial under section 1203.018, subdivisions (d)(1) and (3). Harper filed a timely notice of appeal, Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to 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 offered Harper the opportunity to file her own brief on appeal, but she has not responded to our notice. STATEMENT OF FACTS We have discussed the facts of the offense in our opinion in case No. D069632. We will not repeat them here. DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to review the record for error. To assist the court in its review and 1 Further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 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 trial court erred in failing to award custody credits for the time Harper was out of custody pending trial. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in imposing and staying a four-year mid-term sentence for the enhancement under section 12022.5, subdivision (a). 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 Harper in this appeal. 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