People v. Billodeaux CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D064034 · 2013-11-20 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD245632
Trial judge: Laura W. Halgren
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Joan K. Irion (author), Judith L. Haller, Gilbert Nares

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T06:48Z · confidence low

The trial court accepted Billodeaux's guilty pleas, denied his motion to relieve defense counsel, and sentenced him to 22 years and 4 months in prison. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to *People v. Wende* and *Anders v. California*, finding no reasonably arguable issues of error.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of motion to relieve defense counsel “whether the trial court erred by denying Billodeaux's motion to relieve his attorney”	unclear	not reached	unsure The appellate court identified this as a potential issue raised by counsel but concluded after independent review that no reasonably arguable appellate issue existed, thereby affirming the judgment without specific analysis of this ruling.
Sentencing to 22 years 4 months “whether the trial court erred by failing to sentence Billodeaux to 14 years in prison as requested at the sentencing hearing”	unclear	not reached	unsure The court listed the sentencing discrepancy as a potential issue but found no reasonably arguable error upon independent review, resulting in an affirmance.
Validity of guilty pleas “whether Billodeaux's guilty pleas were constitutionally valid”	unclear	not reached	unsure The court considered the validity of the pleas as a potential issue but determined no reasonably arguable appellate issue was disclosed by the record.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to conduct an independent review of the record for error when no arguable issues are presented.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to withdraw from representation in an appeal where no arguable issues exist, requiring a brief identifying potential issues and an independent court review.
relied: People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 — Sets the standard for evaluating a defendant's motion to relieve defense counsel.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the *Wende*/*Anders* framework for independent review when counsel files a no-merit brief. However, it provides no substantive legal analysis for the specific issues identified, relying solely on the conclusion that no reasonably arguable issues were found.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:31Z · confidence low

The trial court accepted Billodeaux's guilty plea to assault with a firearm, criminal threats, and assault with a firearm on a peace officer with firearm enhancements, denied his Marsden motion, sentenced him to 22 years four months, and issued a certificate of probable cause. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief, Billodeaux filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of Marsden motion to relieve appointed defense counsel and appoint new counsel “Prior to the sentencing hearing, Billodeaux made a request to have defense counsel relieved and new counsel appointed, which the trial court denied after holding a hearing pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion notes a Marsden hearing was held and the motion denied, and identifies the denial as a possible but not arguable issue after independent Wende review. The opinion does not describe the hearing or the grounds, so the conclusion cannot be independently verified from the text, but nothing in the opinion suggests error.
Imposition of a 22-year-four-month consecutive middle-term sentence rather than the 14 years requested by the defense “The trial court sentenced Billodeaux to a middle term consecutive sentence of 22 years four months in prison.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The sentence was below the 24-year-four-month maximum the court indicated at the plea hearing, and the choice of middle terms and consecutive sentencing is a discretionary sentencing matter. The opinion gives no detail of the sentencing reasons, but the result as described is within the court's authority and consistent with the plea.
Validity of the guilty plea (voluntariness, advisement of consequences, medication, counsel's consultation) “A review of the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the issues suggested by counsel, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue.”	unclear	correct	unsure The court conducted the independent review Wende and Anders require and found no arguable issue regarding the plea. Because the opinion does not recount the plea colloquy or the record facts bearing on medication or advisements, a reader cannot verify the conclusion, but the procedure followed was correct.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel files a brief raising no arguable issues, the Court of Appeal must independently review the entire record for error.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds no meritorious issues may file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, after which the court independently reviews the record.
relied: People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 — A defendant seeking substitution of appointed counsel is entitled to a hearing at which he may state the reasons for his dissatisfaction.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court followed the required Wende/Anders procedure: it invited a supplemental brief, considered the issues counsel flagged, and independently reviewed the record before affirming. Because the opinion recites almost no record detail on the Marsden hearing, the plea colloquy, or sentencing reasons, its conclusions cannot be checked from the text, though nothing indicates a misreading of the law.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 11/20/13 P. v. Billodeaux 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, D064034

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD245632)

TOM BILLODEAUX,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Laura W.

Halgren, Judge. Affirmed.

John L. Staley for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Tom Billodeaux appeals the judgment following his guilty plea. Appointed appellate counsel filed a brief presenting no argument for reversal, but inviting this court to review the record for error in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Billodeaux did not respond to our invitation to file a supplemental brief. After having independently reviewed the entire record for error as required by Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) and Wende, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In January 2013, Billodeaux was charged with three counts of assault with a firearm (Pen. Code § 245, subd. (a)(2)),1 three counts of making a criminal threat (§ 422), and one count of assault with a firearm upon a peace officer (§ 245, subd.

(d)(1)). All seven counts included the allegation that Billodeaux personally used a firearm (§§ 12022.5, subd. (a), 12022.53, subd. (b)).

According to the probation officer's report, the crimes occurred when Billodeaux went to the shopping center where his ex-girlfriend worked, pointed a gun at her, threatened to kill her, and then pointed a gun at and threatened to kill a bystander and a security guard who attempted to intervene. Billodeaux then fled to a nearby movie theater where he hid until police officers found him in an occupied theater. When police officers confronted Billodeaux, he raised his gun toward the officers, and they shot him.

Billodeaux pled guilty to one count of assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)), two counts of making of a criminal threat (§ 422), and one count of assault with a firearm on a peace officer (§ 245, subd. (d)(1), along with admitting the corresponding firearm allegations. At the hearing on the guilty plea, the trial court stated that it had determined 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 that the maximum punishment it would likely impose was a sentence of 24 years four months.

Prior to the sentencing hearing, Billodeaux made a request to have defense counsel relieved and new counsel appointed, which the trial court denied after holding a hearing pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.

The trial court sentenced Billodeaux to a middle term consecutive sentence of 22 years four months in prison.

Billodeaux requested that the trial court issue a certificate of probable cause for an appeal. In his request, Billodeaux contended (1) he was on medication when he signed the guilty plea; (2) he was not properly advised of the consequences of the plea agreement; (3) defense counsel failed to discuss the case with him; and (4) the sentence was too long for a first serious criminal offense. The trial court issued a certificate of probable cause.

DISCUSSION

Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings in the trial court. Counsel presented no argument for reversal but invited this court to review the record for error in accordance with Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.

Pursuant to Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, counsel identified as possible but not arguable issues: (1) whether the trial court erred by denying Billodeaux's motion to relieve his attorney; (2) whether the trial court erred by failing to sentence Billodeaux to 14 years in prison as requested at the sentencing hearing; (3) and whether Billodeaux's guilty pleas 3 were constitutionally valid. After we received counsel's brief, we gave Billodeaux an opportunity to file a supplemental brief, but he did not respond.

A review of the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the issues suggested by counsel, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Billodeaux has been adequately represented by counsel on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

IRION, J.

WE CONCUR:

NARES, Acting P.J.

HALLER, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12
People v. Marsden Crim. 14119 · 1970-02-26