People v. May CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCN290287
- Trial judge
- Adrienne A. Orfield
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Patricia D. Benke, Joan K. Irion
Analysis
The trial court reinstated probation on modified terms after the defendant admitted to violating probation by committing a misdemeanor traffic offense. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende and finding no reasonably arguable issues.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Reinstatement of probation on modified terms following admission of probation violation“The court reinstated probation on modified terms and conditions.” | unclear | not reached | agree with court The appellate court did not review the merits of the trial court's probation decision because the Wende review identified no reasonably arguable issues. The court affirmed the judgment based on the absence of error in the record. |
Procedural propriety of appeal without a certificate of probable cause“Whether this appeal is proper without obtaining a certificate of probable cause?” | unclear | not reached | agree with court The court identified this as a possible but not arguable issue raised by counsel. The court's Wende review concluded there were no reasonably arguable appellate issues, effectively dismissing the procedural challenge as meritless. |
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 who believes an appeal is wholly frivolous, requiring a brief identifying possible issues and court review.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the Wende/Anders framework for reviewing appeals where counsel identifies no arguable issues. The court explicitly states it reviewed the entire record and found no error, which is the required standard of review in this context.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court, after May admitted violating probation on her misdemeanor-reduced firearm-possession conviction by pleading guilty to driving on a suspended license, revoked and reinstated probation on modified terms. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief, May 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
Finding of probation violation on May's admission and reinstatement of probation on modified terms and conditions“Competent counsel has represented May on this appeal.” | unclear | correct | agree with court May admitted the violation, which was a new misdemeanor conviction squarely within the probation condition that she obey all laws except minor traffic offenses; reinstatement on modified terms is a lenient disposition well within the court's discretion. The Wende independent review found nothing arguable, and nothing in the opinion suggests any defect. |
Whether the appeal from the probation-violation admission could proceed without a certificate of probable cause“Whether this appeal is proper without obtaining a certificate of probable cause?” | unclear | not reached | agree with court The court listed the certificate issue as the Anders issue counsel identified but did not expressly resolve it, instead affirming after full Wende review. Under section 1237.5 and Mendez, the absence of a certificate bars only challenges to the validity of the admission itself, not post-admission sentencing matters, so the omission did not affect the outcome. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed counsel finds no arguable issues, the appellate court must independently review the entire record for error.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Counsel who finds no meritorious issues should file a brief identifying anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
- missed: People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084 — Section 1237.5's certificate of probable cause requirement is to be applied strictly to appeals challenging the validity of a guilty plea or admission, but does not bar appellate review of post-plea matters not affecting the plea's validity.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the Wende/Anders procedure, describes the procedural history and the issue counsel flagged, and states the court independently reviewed the record, which is all that is required. It does not expressly resolve the certificate of probable cause question it lists, leaving a small gap, though the result would be the same either way.
Opinion
Filed 1/24/14 P. v. May 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, D062973
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN290287)
CHARLOTTE MAY,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Adrienne A. Orfield, Judge. Affirmed.
Jared G. Coleman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance by Respondent.
In October 2011, Charlotte May pled guilty to possessing a firearm within 10 years of being convicted of violating Penal Code1 section 422 (criminal threats)
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. (§ 12021, subd. (c)(1)). On March14, 2012, the court reduced the offense to a misdemeanor and sentenced May to probation.
On June 28, 2012, May admitted violating probation. The court reinstated probation on modified terms and conditions.
May filed a timely notice of appeal. May did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.
Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) raising possible but not arguable issues. We offered May the opportunity to file her own brief on appeal but she has not responded.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The facts of the underlying offense are not relevant to this appeal. The "facts" of this appeal relate to the terms of the grant of probation and the original probation order and the acts leading to violation of probation.
The March 2012 grant of probation required that May not violate any laws except minor traffic offenses. In June 2012, May pled guilty to driving on a suspended license (Veh. Code, § 14601.1, subd. (a)), a misdemeanor.
DISCUSSION
As we have previously noted, appellate counsel has filed a brief indicating he is unable to identify any arguments 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 issue:
2 1. Whether this appeal is proper without obtaining a certificate of probable cause?
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 May on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.
WE CONCUR:
BENKE, Acting P. J.
IRION, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12