People v. Collins CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D064019 · 2014-02-27 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD240609
Trial judge: Eugenia Eyherabide
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Judith L. Haller (author), Judith D. McConnell, McINTYRE

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T06:44Z · confidence low

The trial court sentenced the defendant to a stipulated term of nine years and four months, including a restitution fine of $4,320 and a victim restitution fine of $2,293.12, following a guilty plea. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after a Wende review found no reasonably arguable issues.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Imposition of a victim restitution fine of $2,293.12 “A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issues referred to by appellate counsel, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues.”	de novo	not reached	unsure The court did not reach the merits of the restitution fine because it found no reasonably arguable issues on appeal under the Wende/Anders framework.
Imposition of a restitution fine of $4,320 “A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issues referred to by appellate counsel, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues.”	de novo	not reached	unsure The court did not reach the merits of the restitution fine because it found no reasonably arguable issues on appeal under the Wende/Anders framework.
Denial of a continuance of the sentencing hearing “A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issues referred to by appellate counsel, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues.”	abuse of discretion	not reached	unsure The court did not reach the merits of the continuance denial because it found no reasonably arguable issues on appeal under the Wende/Anders framework.
Calculation of presentence custody credits “A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issues referred to by appellate counsel, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues.”	de novo	not reached	unsure The court did not reach the merits of the custody credits because it found no reasonably arguable issues on appeal under the Wende/Anders framework.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Appointed counsel must review the record for error and file a brief identifying any arguable issues, or state that none exist.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel must file a brief identifying arguable issues, or state that none exist, and the court must independently review the record.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the Wende/Anders framework to review the record for error when appointed counsel identifies no arguable issues. However, it is a summary disposition that does not address the specific legal arguments raised in the notice of appeal, such as the validity of the restitution fines or the guilty plea.

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

The trial court accepted Liz Collins's guilty plea to evading an officer causing serious bodily injury and DUI causing injury with admitted enhancements and priors, imposed the stipulated nine-year-four-month sentence with a $4,320 restitution fine, and later ordered $2,293.12 in stipulated victim restitution. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief identifying possible issues, Collins 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
Victim restitution order of $2,293.12 for medical expenses, entered on counsel's stipulation after defendant waived presence “On March 27, 2013, the court imposed a stipulated restitution fine of $2,293.12.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The amount was stipulated by counsel at a hearing the defendant waived her right to attend; no objection was made, and nothing in the record as described suggests the medical-expense figure lacked a factual basis. Under Wende review the court need not articulate a standard, and the result is defensible, though the opinion offers no analysis of the stipulation-without-personal-agreement question counsel flagged.
Imposition of a $4,320 restitution fine under Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (b) “a restitution fine in the about of $4,320 (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)”	unclear	correct	agree with court The fine was imposed at the December 2012 sentencing; the notice of appeal was mailed in May 2013, well beyond 60 days, and the plea included an appellate waiver and no certificate of probable cause was issued. Whether the fine is reviewable at all is doubtful, and no objection was made below, so finding no arguable issue is sound; the opinion does not explain why but under Wende it need not.
Denial of defendant's request to continue the sentencing hearing “(3) the court erred in denying appellant's request for a continuance of her sentencing hearing”	unclear	correct	agree with court Continuance rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion, and the sentence was stipulated, so any prejudice from denying a continuance is hard to identify; moreover the challenge to the December 2012 sentencing appears untimely. The opinion gives no reasoning on this point, so agreement rests on the Wende posture rather than stated analysis.
Calculation of presentence custody credits “Appellant recognizes the erroneous computation of presentence custody credits must be raised first in the trial court and this matter is currently pending in superior court.”	unclear	not reached	agree with court The court correctly noted that credit-computation errors must first be presented to the trial court (Pen. Code, § 1237.1) and that a motion was pending there, so declining to reach the issue was proper.
Trial court's failure to rule on the request for a certificate of probable cause and the resulting question of appellate cognizability “Because the notice of appeal is arguably timely and the request for probable cause arguably raises issues that can be challenged following a guilty plea, we exercise our discretion to review this matter in accord with Wende procedures rather than dismissing it.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The reviewing court chose to conduct Wende review rather than dismiss despite the unresolved certificate request and timeliness questions; this favored the defendant and produced the same result an affirmance or dismissal would, so there is no prejudice, though the court did not cite authority on the certificate requirement or the prison-delivery rule.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed 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 an appeal frivolous may file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, and the court then reviews the record.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the Wende/Anders procedure, lists the possible issues counsel flagged, notes the defendant filed no supplemental brief, and affirms after independent review; the result is defensible given the stipulated sentence and stipulated restitution amount. It does not, however, explain its resolution of the timeliness and certificate-of-probable-cause questions beyond calling them 'arguable,' and offers no analysis of any flagged issue, leaving gaps in the reasoning even though none appears outcome-determinative.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

Filed 2/27/14 P. v. Collins 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, D064019

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD240609)

LIZ COLLINS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Eugenia Eyherabide, Judge. Affirmed.

Laurel M. Nelson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Liz Collins pled guilty to a violation of Vehicle Code section 2800.3, subdivision (a) (causing serious bodily injury while evading an officer) and Vehicle Code section 23153, subdivision (a) (driving under the influence and causing injury); admitted a great bodily injury enhancement (Pen. Code, § 1192.7, subd. (c)(8))1, two prison priors (§§ 667.5, subd. (b), 668), and one "strike" prior (§ 667, subds. (b) through (i), 1170.12, and 668); and agreed to a stipulated sentence of nine years four months. The court sentenced Collins to the stipulated sentence and imposed various fines and fees, including a restitution fine in the about of $4,320 (§ 1202.4, subd. (b) and a victim restitution fine in the amount of $2,293.12 for medical expenses.

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2

On the evening of April 27, 2012, appellant pulled alongside a police car on routine patrol on 47th Street in the Logan Heights area of San Diego, then accelerated away at a high rate of speed. Officers followed as appellant continued to accelerate. The officers activated their overhead lights and siren in an effort to perform a traffic stop, but appellant failed to yield and accelerated to up to 70 miles per hour while traveling through an intersection. Appellant drove through a red light and then hit a pedestrian (Renita Winn) who was on the sidewalk.

Appellant left her vehicle, fled on foot and was eventually caught and arrested in the backyard of a nearby residence. Appellant, who appeared to be under the influence of alcohol, denied hitting a pedestrian. The pedestrian had a large laceration on her elbow and a puncture wound to her left leg.

1 Subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 The facts are taken from the probation officer's report. 2 Appellant pled guilty on October 1 and was sentenced on December 17, 2012, with the court reserving jurisdiction to determine the amount of victim restitution.

Appellant waived her right to be present at the restitution hearing. On March 27, 2013, the court imposed a stipulated restitution fine of $2,293.12. On May 23 appellant mailed from prison a notice of appeal challenging the March 27 victim restitution order and a request for a certificate of probable cause, asserting several alleged errors including claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, involuntary guilty plea and an illegal sentence. These documents were filed in superior court on May 31. The court did not rule on the request for a certificate of probable cause.3

DISCUSSION

Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. Counsel presents no argument for reversal but asks that this court review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.

Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel refers to as possible but not arguable issues, whether:

(1) the court properly ordered a victim restitution fine in the amount of $2,293.12 (including whether the issue was forfeited by the failure to object; whether the amount was properly determined; and whether counsel's stipulation regarding the amount of the fine was proper in the absence of appellant's personal agreement);

3 Because the notice of appeal is arguably timely and the request for probable cause arguably raises issues that can be challenged following a guilty plea, we exercise our discretion to review this matter in accord with Wende procedures rather than dismissing it. 3 (2) the court committed prejudicial error in imposing a restitution fine in the amount of $4,320 (including whether the issue is cognizable on appeal based on a notice mailed in May 2013 and whether the issue is cognizable on appeal because appellant waived her appellate rights when she entered her guilty plea, failed to object to the fine at sentencing, and did not obtain a certificate of probable cause);

(3) the court erred in denying appellant's request for a continuance of her sentencing hearing; and (4) the court failed to award the proper presentence custody credits.4 We granted appellant permission to file a brief on her own behalf. She 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, including the possible issues referred to by appellate counsel, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Competent counsel has represented appellant on this appeal.

4 Appellant recognizes the erroneous computation of presentence custody credits must be raised first in the trial court and this matter is currently pending in superior court. 4 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HALLER, J.

WE CONCUR:

MCCONNELL, P. J.

MCINTYRE, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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