People v. Monsevath CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD244512
- Trial judge
- Eugenia Eyherabide
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Alex C. McDonald (author), McINTYRE, Joan K. Irion
Analysis
The trial court sentenced the defendant to three consecutive terms of 365 days for violating a court order. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after a Wende review found no reasonably arguable issues.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Sentencing to three consecutive terms of 365 days for violations of Penal Code section 273.6, subdivision (a).“Counsel identifies as a possible, but not arguable, issue: whether the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing Monsevath to three consecutive terms.” | abuse of discretion | not reached | agree with court agree with court |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to review the record for error when no arguable issues are presented.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to file a brief identifying arguable issues or explaining why none exist.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for appointed counsel who identifies no arguable issues. The court performed the required independent review of the record and found no error.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court accepted Monsevath's guilty plea to three counts of disobeying a court order (Pen. Code, § 273.6, subd. (a)) and sentenced him to three consecutive 365-day terms, within the three-year maximum he acknowledged at the plea. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief identifying consecutive sentencing as a possible but not arguable issue, defendant 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
Sentencing defendant to three consecutive 365-day terms on three counts of disobeying a court order after guilty plea“Counsel identifies as a possible, but not arguable, issue: whether the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing Monsevath to three consecutive terms.” | abuse of discretion | correct | agree with court The opinion states the three offenses occurred on three separate days, which supports consecutive terms under the ordinary discretionary sentencing framework, and the aggregate three-year term matched the maximum defendant acknowledged when entering the plea. The court conducted the independent record review required by Wende and found no arguable issue; nothing in the opinion suggests the sentence exceeded the bargained-for exposure or was otherwise unlawful. |
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 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 submit a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, with the court then deciding whether the appeal is frivolous.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly follows the Wende/Anders procedure: counsel flagged a possible issue, defendant was given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief, and the court independently reviewed the record and found no arguable issues. It does not expressly address whether a certificate of probable cause was required for any challenge following the guilty plea or discuss the consecutive-sentencing issue on the merits, but a Wende affirmance does not require that analysis when no arguable issue exists.
Opinion
Filed 11/21/13 P. v. Monsevath 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, D064182
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD244512)
SCOTT MONSEVATH,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Eugenia Eyherabide, Judge. Affirmed.
Steven J. Carroll, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Scott Monsevath was charged by information with one count of stalking with a court order in effect in violation of Penal Code section 646.9, subdivision (b), and seven counts of disobeying a court order in violation of Penal Code section 273.6, subdivision (a). The information also specially alleged he suffered a prior prison term for violating Penal Code section 646.9, subdivision (b). After his first trial ended in a mistrial, the parties entered into a plea bargain under which Monsevath pleaded guilty to three counts of disobeying a court order in violation of Penal Code section 273.6, subdivision (a), each offense having occurred on three separate days, and the prosecution agreed to dismiss the remaining counts. He entered the plea with the understanding he could be sentenced to three years in jail. The court sentenced Monsevath to a term of 365 days on each of the three convictions and ordered those terms to be served consecutively. Monsevath appeals. We affirm the judgment.
FACTS
On three separate occasions, Monsevath knowingly and willfully violated a lawful court order that had been obtained to prevent domestic violence and disturbance of the peace.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the proceedings below.
Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738. Counsel identifies as a possible, but not arguable, issue: whether the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing Monsevath to three consecutive terms.
We granted Monsevath permission to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf, but he has not responded. A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738 has disclosed no reasonably 2 arguable appellate issues. Monsevath has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
McDONALD, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
McINTYRE, J.
IRION, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12