People v. Mazzarino CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D087137 · 2026-08-19 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Bernardino County · No. FWV23001881
Trial judge: Shannon Faherty
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Judith D. McConnell (author), Buchanan

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T03:16Z · confidence low

The trial court denied Mazzarino's motion to withdraw his no contest plea and imposed the stipulated prison sentence. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record found no arguable issues for reversal.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of motion to withdraw no contest plea “whether the court abused its discretion by denying Mazzarino’s motion to withdraw his no contest plea”	abuse of discretion	not reached	unsure The court stated it independently reviewed the record and found no arguable issues for reversal, implying the trial court's decision was not erroneous, but did not provide specific legal analysis or reasoning for why the denial was correct.
Amendment of abstract of judgment “and whether the court had to amend the abstract of judgment”	unclear	not reached	unsure The court listed this as a possible issue considered by counsel but concluded no arguable issues for reversal were found, without explaining the legal basis for the trial court's handling of the abstract.

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.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires counsel to identify possible issues and the court to independently review the record when counsel believes the appeal is frivolous.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound in following the Wende/Anders protocol by conducting an independent review. However, it is substantively thin as it provides no legal analysis for why the specific issues identified (plea withdrawal and abstract amendment) were not arguable, leaving the reasoning implicit rather than explicit.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition unusual disposition

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

The trial court denied Nicholas Mazzarino's motion to withdraw his no contest plea to two counts of child abuse with a great bodily injury enhancement and imposed the stipulated 14-year-four-month prison term. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief, Mazzarino's own letter raised no issues, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of defendant's motion to withdraw his no contest plea before sentencing “whether the court abused its discretion by denying Mazzarino’s motion to withdraw his no contest plea”	abuse of discretion	correct	unsure The opinion identifies the denial of the plea-withdrawal motion only as a possible issue flagged by counsel under Anders and states that independent Wende review disclosed no arguable issue. The opinion recites none of the facts underlying the motion or the trial court's reasons, so there is nothing in the opinion from which to independently confirm or dispute the conclusion.
Imposition of the stipulated sentence and preparation of the abstract of judgment (whether amendment was required) “and whether the court had to amend the abstract of judgment.”	unclear	correct	unsure The court lists the abstract-of-judgment question as a possible issue identified by counsel and finds no arguable error after independent review, but gives no description of the abstract or any discrepancy. Without those details the result cannot be verified from the opinion alone.

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.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal lacks merit may so advise the court but should 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/Anders procedure: it recites the procedural history, notes the possible issues counsel identified, acknowledges the defendant's letter and that it raised no issues, and states the court independently reviewed the record. It gives no substantive discussion of the plea-withdrawal motion or the abstract of judgment, which is typical for a Wende disposition but leaves the reasoning unverifiable from the opinion itself.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 8/19/26 P. v. Mazzarino 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, D087137 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. FWV23001881) v.

NICHOLAS MAZZARINO,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, Shannon Faherty, Judge. Affirmed. Nicholas Mazzarino, in pro. per., and Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Nicholas Mazzarino entered into a plea agreement with a stipulated sentence. He pleaded no contest to two counts of child abuse (Pen. Code, § 273a, subd (a)) and admitted he caused great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (e)). The parties agreed the court would impose the stipulated term of 14 years four months in prison. While the case was pending sentence, Mazzarino moved to set aside the no contest plea. The trial court denied the motion and imposed the stipulated prison sentence. Mazzarino filed a timely notice of appeal and obtained a certificate of probable cause. 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 Mazzarino he could file his own brief on appeal. He has filed a letter in which he complains about his dealings with appellate counsel. He does not raise any issues for reversal on appeal. 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 possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: whether the court abused its discretion by denying Mazzarino’s motion to withdraw his no contest plea, and whether the court had to amend the abstract of judgment. 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 Mazzarino in this appeal.

2 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.* WE CONCUR:

MCCONNELL, P. J.

BUCHANAN, 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