People v. Martinez CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D064125 · 2013-12-10 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCS259877
Trial judge: Edward P. Allard III
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Gilbert Nares, Joan K. Irion

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T06:47Z · confidence low

The trial court denied the defendant's motion to strike a serious/violent felony prior conviction and sentenced him to 32 months in prison. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende found no reasonably arguable issues of error.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of motion to strike serious/violent felony prior conviction “Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to strike the serious/violent felony prior conviction?”	abuse of discretion	not reached	unsure The court identified the issue as 'possible, but not arguable' and stated it had 'not found any reasonably arguable appellate issues' after reviewing the entire record, effectively declining to analyze the merits of the trial court's ruling.
Imposition of $280 restitution file “Whether imposition of a $280 restitution file violated the ex post facto clause?”	de novo	not reached	unsure The court listed this as a 'possible, but not arguable' issue and concluded its independent review revealed no reasonably arguable appellate issues, thus not addressing the constitutional claim.
Denial of motion to suppress evidence “Whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress evidence on Fourth Amendment grounds?”	mixed	not reached	unsure The court categorized this as a 'possible, but not arguable' issue and affirmed the judgment based on a finding that no reasonably arguable issues existed in the record.
Allowance of amendment of the information “Whether the court abused its discretion in allowing amendment of the information on the day of trial?”	abuse of discretion	not reached	unsure The court identified this as a 'possible, but not arguable' issue and affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record found no reasonably arguable appellate issues.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appellate counsel to file a brief identifying possible issues and the court to conduct an independent review of the record when counsel finds no arguable issues.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to withdraw from an appeal by filing a brief identifying potential issues and requesting court review.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for handling appeals where counsel identifies no arguable issues. However, it provides no substantive legal analysis or reasoning for why the specific issues raised (such as the ex post facto claim or suppression motion) were not arguable, relying solely on the court's internal review.

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

A jury convicted Jonathan Martinez of possession of a controlled substance, the trial court found a prior strike true, denied his motion to strike it, and sentenced him to 32 months in prison. On appeal, counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief identifying four possible but not arguable issues, Martinez filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no reasonably arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of defense motion to strike the serious/violent felony prior conviction (Romero motion) “1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to strike the”	abuse of discretion	correct	unsure The opinion identifies this as a potential issue flagged by counsel and states only that independent Wende review disclosed no arguable issue. No facts about the prior, the defendant's record, or the trial court's reasons are recited, so there is no basis in the opinion to evaluate whether the denial was within the court's discretion.
Imposition of a $280 restitution fine (claimed ex post facto violation) “2. Whether imposition of a $280 restitution file violated the ex post facto clause?”	unclear	correct	unsure The offense occurred October 1, 2012, when the statutory minimum restitution fine was $240; $280 became the minimum in 2013. A $280 fine is within the lawful range for the offense date, so there is no ex post facto violation unless the record shows the court intended to impose the statutory minimum, which the opinion does not disclose. The court's conclusion is plausible but the opinion gives no analysis.
Denial of motion to suppress evidence on Fourth Amendment grounds “3. Whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress evidence on”	unclear	correct	unsure The statement of facts notes Martinez was on parole when searched by a fugitive task force lawfully admitted to the apartment by the renter. A parole search condition would ordinarily justify the search, which makes the court's conclusion of no arguable issue plausible, but the opinion provides no analysis or record detail on the suppression ruling.
Allowing amendment of the information on the day of trial “4. Whether the court abused its discretion in allowing amendment of the”	abuse of discretion	correct	unsure The opinion does not describe the nature of the amendment or any claimed prejudice, so it is impossible to assess from the opinion whether permitting the amendment was within the trial court's discretion under Penal Code section 1009.
Judgment of conviction and sentence as a whole (Wende independent review) “We have reviewed the entire record in accordance with Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d”	de novo	correct	agree with court The court followed the required Wende/Anders procedure: counsel identified potential issues, the defendant was offered the chance to file a supplemental brief, and the court independently reviewed the record. The opinion complies with the minimal requirements for a Wende disposition, though it provides no substantive analysis of the identified issues.

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 frivolous may so advise the court but must file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion follows the standard Wende/Anders procedure, lists the potential issues counsel identified, confirms the defendant was offered the chance to file his own brief, and states the court independently reviewed the record. It offers no analysis of any issue, which is permissible for a Wende affirmance, but leaves the reader unable to verify the conclusions from the opinion alone.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 12/10/13 P. v. Martinez 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, D064125

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCS259877)

JONATHAN MARTINEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Edward P.

Allard, III, Judge. Affirmed.

Law Office of Alissa L. Bjerkhoel and Alissa L. Bjerkhoel for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

A jury convicted Jonathan Martinez of possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)). The court found true one serious/violent felony prior conviction (Pen. Code, § 667, subd. (b)-(i)). The defense motion to strike the serious/violent felony prior conviction was denied and Martinez was sentenced to a term of 32 months in prison.

Martinez filed a timely notice of appeal.

Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) raising possible but not arguable issues. We offered Martinez the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

On October 1, 2012, Martinez was staying at an apartment in Imperial Beach which was rented by George Laguna. Officers of the U.S. Marshal's Fugitive Task Force had gone to the apartment to arrest two other men. They were admitted to the apartment by Laguna.

Martinez, who was on parole at the time, was searched. The search revealed a small amount of methamphetamine.

DISCUSSION

As we have previously noted, appellate counsel has filed a brief indicating she is unable to identify any argument for reversal and asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders, supra, 386 U.S.

738, the brief identifies the possible, but not arguable issues:

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to strike the serious/violent felony prior conviction?

2. Whether imposition of a $280 restitution file violated the ex post facto clause?

2 3. Whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress evidence on Fourth Amendment grounds?

4. Whether the court abused its discretion in allowing amendment of the information on the day of trial?

We have reviewed the entire record in accordance with Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738 and have not found any reasonably arguable appellate issues. Competent counsel has represented Martinez on appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

NARES, J.

IRION, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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