People v. Hardy CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D064225 · 2014-02-11 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD239663, SCE297862
Trial judges: Charles G. Rogers; Laura W. Halgren; Robert F. O'Neill
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: McINTYRE (author), Judith L. Haller, O'Rourke

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T06:45Z · confidence low

The trial court revoked Hardy's probation and imposed an upper-term sentence of four years (split into two years in custody and two years supervision) for aiding and abetting the sale of a controlled substance. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, finding no reasonably arguable issues.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Imposition of upper-term sentence and split sentence “Our review of the record pursuant to Wende, including the possible issues listed by counsel pursuant to Anders, has disclosed no reasonably arguable issues on appeal.”	de novo	not reached	agree with court The court did not explicitly analyze the merits of the sentencing discretion but affirmed based on the Wende review finding no arguable error.
Denial of Marsden hearing and recall of sentence “The trial court sent Hardy a letter stating it was unable to address her letters because her case was "now before the Court of Appeal."”	de novo	not reached	agree with court The court listed these as possible issues but concluded via Wende review that they were not reasonably arguable.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Mandates independent review of the record by appellate counsel when no issues are raised.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires counsel to file a brief identifying any arguable issues, even if none are found.
relied: People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 — Establishes the right to a hearing to determine the need for appointed counsel.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the Wende/Anders framework for appointed counsel appeals. It relies on the standard of independent review to affirm the judgment without detailed merits analysis, which is permissible when no arguable issues are identified.

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

After Amelia Hardy admitted violating probation in two cases, the trial court terminated probation in Case B with credit for time served and imposed an upper-term four-year split sentence (two years local custody, two years mandatory supervision) in Case A, later declining to act on her letters seeking recall of sentence, a Marsden hearing, and resentencing because the case was on appeal. On a Wende/Anders review with no supplemental brief from Hardy, the Court of Appeal found no reasonably arguable issues and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Imposition of the upper term of four years on Case A following revocation of probation, based on criminal history, repeated grants and revocations of probation, and absence of mitigating factors “the court imposed an upper-term sentence of four years based on Hardy's criminal history, numerous grants of probation and subsequent revocations and the absence of mitigating factors.”	abuse of discretion	correct	agree with court The upper term equaled the maximum Hardy was advised of at her plea, and the stated aggravating factors (prior record, prior unsatisfactory performance on probation) are recognized aggravating circumstances under the Rules of Court; the opinion states no analysis but the recited facts support the result.
Imposition of a split sentence of two years local custody and two years mandatory supervision on Case A “It ordered a split sentence of two years in local custody and two years mandatory supervision, with 292 days credit.”	abuse of discretion	correct	agree with court A split sentence under Penal Code section 1170(h)(5) is within the sentencing court's discretion and nothing in the recited record suggests an abuse; the court gave no specific reasoning but the result is defensible.
Trial court's refusal to act on Hardy's post-judgment letters seeking recall of sentence, a Marsden hearing, and a sentencing rehearing because the case was before the Court of Appeal “The trial court sent Hardy a letter stating it was unable to address her letters because her case was "now before the Court of Appeal."”	unclear	correct	agree with court The filing of a notice of appeal generally divests the trial court of jurisdiction over matters affecting the judgment, and a defendant has no right to compel a hearing on a Penal Code section 1170(d) recall request; however the opinion does not actually discuss these points, so agreement rests on general principles rather than the opinion's stated reasoning.

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.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds no meritorious issues may file a brief identifying anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
relied: People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 — A defendant seeking substitution of appointed counsel is entitled to a hearing to state the reasons for the request.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is a standard Wende disposition that correctly identifies the governing procedure, lists the Anders issues counsel flagged, and confirms independent record review with no supplemental brief from the defendant. It offers no substantive analysis of the listed issues, so the reader cannot verify the reasoning, though the recited facts make the result defensible.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

Filed 2/11/14 P. v. Hardy 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, D064225

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. SCD239663, v. SCE297862)

AMELIA HARDY,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Charles G.

Rogers, Laura W. Halgren, Robert F. O'Neill, Judges. Affirmed.

Patricia M. Ihara, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearances for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Amelia Hardy pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting the sale of a controlled substance to an undercover police officer (Case A, SCD239663). At the hearing, the trial court informed Hardy that the maximum penalty for the crime was four years in prison.

At the time of the crime, Hardy was on probation for a previous crime (Case B, SCE297862). Probation on Case B was violated by the guilty plea in Case A, but was subsequently reinstated.

At a sentencing hearing the following month, the trial court gave Hardy a three year suspended sentence on Case A and ordered 180 days in local custody concurrent to the time imposed on Case B, with 92 days of credit. The court found that Hardy was unable to pay nonmandatory fines and fees. On Case B, the court imposed jail time of 365 days, with 229 days of credit. The trial court referred both cases to probation to determine whether Hardy was eligible for the mentally ill offender's unit supervision, and if she was not eligible, it requested probation to evaluate her for mental health services.

Hardy's probation was summarily revoked after the probation department reported that, among other things, she failed to report to probation and failed to drug test. Hardy later waived her right to an evidentiary hearing and admitted that she violated probation in both of her cases as alleged in the probation officer's report. The trial court formally revoked probation.

On Case B, the court noted that probation would have expired in little more than a month. It reinstated and then denied further probation. With credit for time served of 460 days, the court concluded that Case B was "over . . . and done with." On Case A, the court imposed an upper-term sentence of four years based on Hardy's criminal history, numerous grants of probation and subsequent revocations and the absence of mitigating factors. It ordered a split sentence of two years in local custody and two years mandatory supervision, with 292 days credit.

2 Hardy sent the court correspondence asking to reinstate probation and for an evidentiary hearing on her probation violation. She later filed a pro per motion to change her plea. Acting in pro per, Hardy filed a notice of appeal. Counsel later filed an amended notice of appeal indicating it was an appeal from an admission of probation violation and based on the sentence or other matters that occurred after the plea and do not affect its validity.

In a letter to the court, Hardy requested a Marsden hearing and a sentencing rehearing. (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.) In another letter, she again asked for a rehearing or sentence modification hearing. The trial court sent Hardy a letter stating it was unable to address her letters because her case was "now before the Court of Appeal."

DISCUSSION

Appointed appellate counsel filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. He presented no argument for reversal, but asked this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Under Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel listed as possible but not arguable issues, whether: (1) the court erred when it took Hardy's motion for recall of sentence off calendar;

(2) Hardy had standing to require the trial court to hold a hearing on her motion for recall of sentence; (3) the court erred when it failed to hold a hearing on Hardy's request for a Marsden hearing after it took her motion for recall of sentence off calendar; (4) the court abused its discretion when it sentenced Hardy to the upper term; and (5) the court abused its 3 discretion when it sentenced Hardy to serve a split sentence of two years in local custody and two years mandatory supervision.

We granted Hardy permission to file a brief on her own behalf. She has not responded. Our review of the record pursuant to Wende, including the possible issues listed by counsel pursuant to Anders, has disclosed no reasonably arguable issues on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Hardy on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

McINTYRE, J.

WE CONCUR:

HALLER, Acting P. J.

O'ROURKE, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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