People v. Smith CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D086522 · 2026-09-11 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCN465370
Trial judge: Saba Sheibani
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: O'Rourke (author), Laurence D. Rubin

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T03:14Z · confidence low

The trial court denied Smith's motion to replace appointed counsel and, following a jury trial, convicted him of three misdemeanors and sentenced him to credit for time served. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, finding no arguable issues for reversal.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of motion to replace appointed counsel “Before trial, Smith filed a motion to replace appointed counsel. The court held a hearing on the motion and denied the request.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The opinion does not discuss the merits of the motion to replace counsel, nor does it assign a standard of review to this ruling; it is mentioned only as part of the procedural history.
Convictions on counts 3, 4, and 5 “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 Wende/Anders standard of independent review to the entire record, including the sufficiency of the evidence for the lesser included offenses, and found no error.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appellate counsel to file a brief identifying arguable issues and the court to independently review the record for error when counsel finds none.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel who believes an appeal is frivolous, requiring a brief and independent court review.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for reviewing a case where appointed counsel identifies no arguable issues. It explicitly states that the court performed the required independent review of the record and found no error.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:01Z · confidence low

The trial court denied Smith's pretrial motion to replace appointed counsel, and after a jury trial Smith was acquitted on one felony count, one felony was dismissed, and he was convicted of three misdemeanors (one as a lesser included offense) and sentenced to credit for time served with no probation. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief, Smith 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
Denial of Smith's pretrial motion to replace appointed counsel “Before trial, Smith filed a motion to replace appointed counsel. The court held a hearing on the motion and denied the request.”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion states only that a hearing was held and the motion denied, and that independent Wende review disclosed no arguable issue. Nothing in the opinion suggests the hearing was inadequate, but the opinion provides no facts about the hearing, so the conclusion cannot be independently verified from the text.
Convictions on the lesser included misdemeanor offense in count 3 and the misdemeanors in counts 4 and 5 (sufficiency of the evidence, the Anders issue identified by counsel) “whether there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the convictions as lesser included offenses of the felony offenses.”	unclear	correct	unsure Counsel flagged sufficiency of the evidence as a possible issue; the court conducted independent review under Wende and Anders and found no arguable issue. The opinion recites no evidence, so the result is plausible and procedurally regular but cannot be checked against the record 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 error before affirming.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal lacks merit may so advise the court and should identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.

The appellate opinion: sound — The court followed the required Wende/Anders procedure: it noted counsel's brief and the possible issue identified, gave Smith an opportunity to file a supplemental brief, independently reviewed the record, and found no arguable issues. The opinion is sparse and does not cite Marsden or describe the evidence, but no supplemental brief was filed, so nothing more was required and the affirmance is defensible.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 9/11/26 P. v. Smith 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, D086522

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SCN465370)

VANCE LAMONT SMITH,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Saba Sheibani, Judge. Affirmed.

Bruce L. Kotler, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent. Vance Lamont Smith was charged with several counts of possession, sales and transportation of controlled substances. Before trial, Smith filed a motion to replace appointed counsel. The court held a hearing on the motion and denied the request. After a jury trial, Smith was found not guilty of the felony offense charged in count 1, the People dismissed the felony offense alleged in count 2, the jury returned a guilty verdict on the lesser included misdemeanor offense for count 3 and convicted on the misdemeanors charged in counts 4 and 5. The court sentenced Smith to credit for time served with no probation. Smith 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 offered Smith the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded to our notice and has not filed a supplemental brief. 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 a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: whether there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the convictions as lesser included offenses of the felony offenses. 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 Smith in this appeal.

2 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.* WE CONCUR:

O’ROURKE, Acting P. J.

RUBIN, 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.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12