People v. Young CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D087012 · 2026-08-31 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. CN464852, CN468058CN269253
Trial judge: Kelly C. Mok
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Judith D. McConnell (author), O'Rourke

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T03:15Z · confidence low

The trial court consolidated three drug cases, granted a motion to exclude certain statements while admitting others, and convicted the defendant of six counts with a stayed sentence. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record, noting that appointed counsel failed to properly identify potential issues under Anders but finding no arguable errors on the record.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Independent review of the record for error (Wende/Anders review) “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	not reached	agree with court The court applied the standard Wende/Anders independent review, finding no arguable issues. This is the correct procedural posture for an appeal where counsel identifies no issues.
Admissibility of statements (Motion to exclude March 19, 2025 statements) “It granted a motion to exclude Young’s March 19, 2025 statements but found that the subsequent statements were admissible.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The opinion mentions the trial court's ruling on the motion to exclude statements but does not analyze it on appeal because counsel did not raise it and the court found no arguable issues in its independent review.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to independently review the record for error when no issues are identified.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires counsel to file a brief identifying any arguable issues, even if none are found, to ensure due process.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion correctly identifies the procedural requirements of Wende and Anders and notes counsel's failure to fully comply by not specifying potential issues. However, the court proceeds to affirm based on its own independent review, which is the appropriate remedy when counsel's brief is deficient but the record is clear.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:08Z · confidence low

After consolidating three drug cases, the trial court excluded Young's March 19, 2025 statements but admitted her later statements, and a jury convicted her of three counts of possessing a controlled substance and three counts of possessing drug paraphernalia; the court imposed 90 days in custody, stayed pending completion of probation. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief, Young filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Judgment of conviction and probationary sentence on six counts, reviewed independently under Wende/Anders after counsel found no arguable issues “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	agree with court A Wende appeal with no supplemental brief from the defendant requires only independent review of the record; the opinion recites the convictions, sentence, and the one notable evidentiary ruling and finds no arguable issue. Nothing in the opinion suggests an error, and the procedure followed matches Wende and People v. Kelly's minimum requirements for the opinion's content.
Partial grant of motion to exclude statements: March 19, 2025 statements excluded, subsequent statements admitted “It granted a motion to exclude Young’s March 19, 2025 statements but found that the subsequent statements were admissible.”	unclear	correct	unsure The appellate court did not separately analyze this ruling; it was subsumed in the independent Wende review, which found no arguable issue. The opinion gives no facts about the basis for exclusion or the content of the later statements, so there is no way to independently assess the ruling from this record.

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 issues before affirming.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous must so advise the court and request permission to withdraw, accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal; the court then decides whether the appeal is frivolous.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court followed the Wende procedure correctly: it recited the convictions, sentence, and key evidentiary ruling, noted the defendant filed no supplemental brief, independently reviewed the record, and affirmed. Its criticism that counsel must identify possible issues to 'comply with Anders' is dicta and sits uneasily with Wende itself, which held that counsel need not raise specific issues (the court acknowledged counsel's approach did not impede its review), and the opinion is too sparse to allow any independent check of the admitted-statements ruling.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 8/31/26 P. v. Young 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, D087012 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. CN464852, v. CN468058 & CN269253)

TAMMIE R. YOUNG, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Kelly C. Mok, Judge. Affirmed. Stephanie L. Gunther, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

Tammie R. Young was arrested and charged with various drug offenses in three different cases, including three counts of possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377) and three counts of possession of drug paraphernalia (§ 11364). The court consolidated the cases and conducted a jury trial. It granted a motion to exclude Young’s March 19, 2025 statements but found that the subsequent statements were admissible. The jury found Young guilty of all six counts. The court imposed 90 days in custody, which it stayed pending completion of probation. The same terms were ordered for each of the six counts. Young 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 Young that she could file her own brief on appeal, but Young has not responded to the court’s notice. DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has asked 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 appears to believe one can comply with the Anders rule by including an expanded statement of facts in the briefs, seeking to avoid the requirement that counsel advise the court as to what counsel thinks is a possible issue. Counsel has an obligation to comply with Anders. We do not know what motivates counsel to try to avoid identifying possible beneficial issues. We do not approve the steps taken here. While we would have preferred counsel to specify what possible issues were considered under Anders, the case is straight forward. We are satisfied we can discern whether appellant has been adequately protected on this record. 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 Young in this appeal. 2 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