People v. Trujillo CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCS259700
- Trial judge
- Theodore M. Weathers
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Alex C. McDonald (author), Judith L. Haller, McINTYRE
Analysis
The trial court accepted Trujillo's guilty plea to robbery and gang enhancement, resulting in a 16-year sentence, and denied his request for a certificate of probable cause. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record found no reasonably arguable issues.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of certificate of probable cause and affirmation of the judgment“We granted Trujillo 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 arguable appellate issues.” | de novo | correct | agree with court The court correctly applied the Wende/Anders procedure, which requires independent review of the record when appointed counsel finds no arguable issues. Since the appellant did not file a supplemental brief and the court found no errors, affirmance is the proper disposition. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appellate counsel to file a brief identifying potential issues and the court to conduct an independent review of the record when no issues are found.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the federal constitutional standard for appointed appellate counsel to file a no-merit brief and for the court to review the record independently.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it strictly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for no-merit appeals. It correctly notes the appellant's failure to respond to the invitation to file a supplemental brief and confirms the court's independent review found no error.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court accepted Trujillo's negotiated guilty plea to robbery with a gang enhancement, sentenced him to the stipulated 16-year term, and denied his request for a certificate of probable cause when he sought to challenge the plea on the ground that he had not received all requested discovery. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief, Trujillo 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
Acceptance of the guilty plea and imposition of the stipulated 16-year sentence under the plea agreement (constitutional validity of the plea identified by counsel as a possible issue)“Counsel identifies as a possible, but not arguable, issue: whether Trujillo's plea was constitutionally valid.” | de novo | correct | agree with court The court conducted the independent record review required by Wende and Anders and found no arguable issue. Nothing in the opinion suggests any defect in the plea or sentence; the sentence matched the stipulated term. Moreover, because the trial court denied a certificate of probable cause, a challenge to the plea's validity would not have been cognizable under Penal Code section 1237.5 in any event, so affirmance is the only available result. |
Denial of the request for a certificate of probable cause on Trujillo's claim that he was not given all requested discovery“but the court denied his request for a certificate of probable cause.” | unclear | not reached | agree with court The opinion notes the denial but does not separately review it; it simply forms part of the procedural history. A denial of a certificate of probable cause is ordinarily challenged by writ, not on appeal, and the discovery complaint would not go to the legality of the plea in any event, so there is no reason to think the trial court erred. The Court of Appeal appropriately did not treat it as an arguable issue. |
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 to determine whether any arguable issues exist before affirming.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal frivolous must so advise the court and file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, and the court must then decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion follows the Wende/Anders procedure correctly: it summarizes the proceedings, notes the possible issue identified by counsel, gives the defendant an opportunity to file a supplemental brief, and reports its independent review found no arguable issues. It could have noted that, absent a certificate of probable cause, any challenge to the plea's validity was not cognizable under Penal Code section 1237.5, but that omission does not affect the result.
Opinion
Filed 1/24/14 P. v. Trujillo 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, D063961
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCS259700)
GUILLERMO TRUJILLO,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Theodore M. Weathers, Judge. Affirmed.
Robert Booher, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Guillermo Trujillo was charged by information with robbery (Pen. Code, § 211),1 assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)) with an allegation he personally used a dangerous or deadly weapon (§ 1192.7, subd. (c)(23)), and assault by means likely to 1 Statutory references are to the Penal Code. cause great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)). The information charged gang enhancements as to all counts (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)), and alleged a prison prior (§§ 667.5, subd. (b), 668), and a strike prior (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, 668). The parties entered into a plea bargain; Trujillo pleaded guilty to robbery and admitted the gang enhancement allegation in return for a stipulated term of 16 years. Thereafter, he was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement. Trujillo subsequently filed a notice of appeal challenging the validity of the plea, alleging he was not given all of the discovery he requested, but the court denied his request for a certificate of probable cause.
Trujillo appeals. We affirm the judgment.
FACTS
Trujillo took the personal property of another with force or fear, and did so for the benefit of a criminal street gang.
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 Trujillo's plea was constitutionally valid.
We granted Trujillo 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. Trujillo has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
McDONALD, J.
WE CONCUR:
HALLER, Acting P. J.
McINTYRE, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12