People v. Magdaleno CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD229679
- Trial judge
- Robert F. O'Neill
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- O'Rourke (author), Judith D. McConnell, Joan K. Irion
Analysis
The trial court corrected an erroneous prior sentence by accepting a new guilty plea and imposing a two-year state prison term with concurrent counts. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, finding no reasonably arguable issues on independent review.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Affirmance of judgment following independent review of the record“Our 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 Magdaleno's appellate counsel, has revealed no reasonably arguable appellate issue.” | de novo | not reached | agree with court The court conducted an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende and Anders v. California, finding no reasonably arguable issues. The court noted that without a certificate of probable cause, the appellant could not challenge the validity of his guilty plea under section 1237.5. |
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 presented.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to withdraw from a criminal appeal by filing a brief identifying potential issues and requesting the court to review the record.
- relied: People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084 — Holds that a defendant who fails to obtain a certificate of probable cause cannot challenge the validity of a guilty plea on appeal.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the Wende/Anders framework for independent review. It accurately cites People v. Mendez to support the proposition that the lack of a certificate of probable cause bars the challenge to the plea's validity.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court, after revoking probation and correcting an erroneous earlier plea and sentence, accepted Magdaleno's April 2013 guilty plea to unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor and oral copulation of a minor and sentenced him to two years in state prison with 430 days of credits and various fines. On appeal under People v. Wende, appointed counsel raised no argument, the Court of Appeal found no arguable issue, held the plea's validity could not be challenged without a certificate of probable cause, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Acceptance of the April 2013 guilty plea and its constitutional validity (the sole possible issue identified by counsel under Anders)“Because Magdaleno did not obtain a certificate of probable cause, he cannot challenge the validity of his guilty plea. (§ 1237.5; People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1096-1097.)” | unclear | not reached | agree with court Section 1237.5 and Mendez bar review of challenges to the validity of a guilty plea absent a certificate of probable cause, and the opinion states no certificate was obtained. The court correctly declined to reach the merits of the plea's validity on that procedural ground. |
Imposition of a two-year state prison sentence (low term on count 1, concurrent midterm on count 3), 430 days of custody credits, and fines and assessments, correcting the invalid March 2013 sentence“The court acknowledged that the sentence imposed in March 2013 was invalid and corrected the felony abstract of judgment to impose a state prison sentence of two years” | unclear | correct | agree with court The Wende review found no arguable error in the sentence, which conformed to the two-year lid in the plea bargain and replaced an unauthorized three-year term. Nothing in the opinion suggests the credits, fines, or terms were improper, though the opinion gives no detailed analysis of the credit calculation. |
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 error.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal without merit may file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
- relied: People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084 — A defendant who fails to obtain a certificate of probable cause under section 1237.5 cannot challenge the validity of a guilty plea on appeal; the requirement is strictly applied.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion applies the correct Wende/Anders framework and properly cites section 1237.5 and Mendez to bar review of the plea's validity absent a certificate of probable cause. It is brief and does not discuss the propriety of the nunc pro tunc filing of the amended complaint or the credit calculation, but a Wende affirmance requires no detailed analysis and the result is defensible.
Opinion
Filed 3/12/14 P. v. Magdaleno 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, D063882
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD229679)
MITCHELL MAGDALENO,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Robert F.
O'Neill, Judge. Affirmed.
Robert Booher, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for the Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for the Plaintiff and Respondent. In April 2013, after his probation was revoked, Mitchell Magdaleno pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor (Pen. Code,1 § 261.5; count 1) and oral copulation of a minor (§ 288a, subd. (b)(2); count 2) in exchange for dismissal of remaining charges and a maximum punishment of two years in state prison. Magdaleno entered into the April 2013 plea so as to correct an error in an earlier guilty plea he had entered into in January 2011 as well as an erroneous sentence imposed after his probation revocation. The trial court sentenced Magdaleno to a two-year low term on count 1 and a concurrent two-year midterm on count 2. It granted Magdaleno 430 days of actual and local conduct credits and ordered him to pay various fees and fines. Magdaleno filed the present appeal. We affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
After the People charged Magdaleno with four counts of committing a lewd act on a child 14 or 15 years of age (§ 288, subd. (c)(1)), he pleaded guilty in January 2011 to one count of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor (§ 261.5) and another count identified incorrectly on the plea form as under section "288(a)(2)." The terms of Magdaleno's plea bargain provided for a maximum punishment of two years in state prison. In May 2011, Magdaleno was granted three years of probation for his convictions, the second of which was correctly listed in the order as oral copulation of a minor under section 288a, subdivision (b)(2). He was ordered to serve 210 days in county jail with two days of credit.
1 Statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. 2 In February 2012, Magdaleno admitted violating his probation by failing to attend sex offender treatment. The trial court, following a probation officer's recommendation, reinstated probation.
In March 2013, Magdaleno admitted to seven additional probation violations. The court revoked his probation and sentenced him to a three-year midterm on count 1 and a concurrent two-year midterm on count 2.
On April 26, 2013, the People filed an amended complaint asserting two counts of section 261.5 violations (counts 1 and 2) and one count of a violation of section 288a, subdivision (b)(2) (count 3). Observing that Magdaleno was arraigned on an amended complaint in January 2011 but there was no such complaint in the file, the trial court nunc pro tunc deemed the amended complaint as filed on January 26, 2011. The court further explained: "And for purposes of today's hearing, we now have a felony change of plea form that is correct as to the charges that were in the amended complaint and is correct as to what the negotiated disposition was as of the date of January 26, 2011."
Magdaleno then entered into a guilty plea to count 1 and count 3 of the amended complaint, in exchange for dismissal of the balance of the charges and a two-year "lid."
The factual basis for his plea consisted of Magdaleno's sworn admission (as well as a written statement initialed by Magdaleno), that he "had unlawful sexual intercourse when 21 years of age or older with a minor under 16 and including oral copulation of same minor under 16." The court acknowledged that the sentence imposed in March 2013 was invalid and corrected the felony abstract of judgment to impose a state prison sentence of two years, consisting of the two-year low term on count 1 and a concurrent two-year 3 midterm on count 3. It ordered Magdaleno to pay a $200 restitution fine under section 1202.4, subdivision (b), a $200 parole revocation restitution fine under section 1202.45, and an $80 court operations assessment under section 1465.8. The court awarded Magdaleno 430 days of custody credits.
Magdaleno timely filed a notice appeal but did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.
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. Under Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel identifies one possible appellate issue: whether Magdaleno's guilty plea was constitutionally valid. We granted Magdaleno permission to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf, but he did not respond.
Our 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 Magdaleno's appellate counsel, has revealed no reasonably arguable appellate issue.
Because Magdaleno did not obtain a certificate of probable cause, he cannot challenge the validity of his guilty plea. (§ 1237.5; People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1096-1097.) Magdaleno has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.
4 DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
O'ROURKE, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
IRION, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Mendez No. S066175 · 1999-01-14
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12