People v. Warneckedavis CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD240587, SCD243045
- Trial judge
- Eugenia A. Eyherabide
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Alex C. McDonald (author), Patricia D. Benke, Joan K. Irion
Analysis
The trial court sentenced the defendant to a combined term of five years and eight months across two cases pursuant to plea bargains. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after conducting an independent review of the record and finding no reasonably arguable issues of error.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Affirmance of the judgment following a Wende/Anders review“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 | not reached | agree with court The court applied the standard Wende/Anders review, examining the record for any reasonably arguable issues. Since counsel identified no issues and the court found none, the judgment was affirmed. This is the standard procedure for such appeals. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to review the record for error and file a brief if no issues are found, or to request the court to conduct an independent review.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to withdraw from an appeal by filing a brief identifying the record and requesting the court to review it for error.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for cases where appointed counsel finds no arguable issues. The court explicitly states it reviewed the record and found no errors, which is the required standard of review in this context.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court accepted Warnekedavis's guilty pleas in two San Diego cases (petty theft with a prior and a prison prior in SCD240587; stalking in violation of a court order, assault with a deadly weapon, and an enhancement in SCD243045) and sentenced him to a combined term of five years eight months, matching the negotiated cap, with fines, fees, and custody credits. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief raising no issues, the defendant 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
Judgment of conviction on guilty pleas and aggregate sentence of five years eight months (four years in SCD243045 plus a consecutive one year eight months in SCD240587), with fines, fees, and 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 has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The court conducted the independent record review required by Wende and Anders rather than applying a ruling-specific standard. The facts stated are consistent with the plea: the SCD240587 term (one-third the two-year midterm for the section 666 wobbler, eight months, plus a one-year section 667.5(b) prior) equals one year eight months, and the total of five years eight months equals the negotiated maximum, so nothing on the face of the opinion suggests an unauthorized sentence or a breach of the bargain. With no supplemental brief and no issues identified by counsel, the affirmance follows from the Wende procedure. |
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 issue exists before affirming.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous may so advise the court and request to withdraw or submit a brief referring to anything in the record that might support the appeal, after which the court reviews the record for arguable issues.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion follows the Wende/Anders procedure, recites the charges, pleas, and sentence, notes that the defendant was invited to but did not file a supplemental brief, and states that independent review disclosed no arguable issue, which satisfies the requirements of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 for Wende dispositions. The sentence described is internally consistent with the plea agreement and applicable sentencing ranges, so the affirmance rests on a defensible and complete application of the governing procedure.
Opinion
Filed 4/4/14 P. v. Warneckedavis 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, D064686
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. Nos. SCD240587, SCD243045) DANNY WARNECKEDAVIS, Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Eugenia A.
Eyherabide, Judge. Affirmed.
Patrick J. Hennessey, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Danny Warnekedavis was charged in San Diego County case No. SCD240587 (SCD240587) with commercial burglary (Pen. Code, § 459) and petty theft with three priors (§§ 484/490.5), with an allegation that he had served a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The parties entered into a plea bargain pursuant to which Warnekedavis pleaded to petty theft with a prior conviction, along with admitting the prison prior, with the further agreement the other charges and allegations would be dismissed and he would receive a local term as a condition of probation and receive credit for time served.
Warnekedavis was subsequently charged with numerous counts in a new case, San Diego County case No. SCD243045, which included one count of stalking in violation of a court order (§ 646.9, subd. (b)), two counts of making criminal threats (§ 422), two counts of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)), disobeying a domestic violence order (§ 273.6, subd. (a)), kidnapping (§ 207, subd. (a)), dissuading a witness (§ 136.1, subd. (b)(1)), vandalism (§ 594, subds. (a), (b)(2)(A)), receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)), and battery (§ 243, subd. (e)(1)). The complaint also alleged he had served a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The parties entered into a plea bargain pursuant to which Warnekedavis pleaded guilty to stalking in violation of a court order and one count of assault with a deadly weapon, and admitted an enhancing allegation, with the further agreement that the total sentence in SCD243045 and SCD240587 would not exceed a combined term of five years eight months.
In July 2013 Warnekedavis was sentenced in both cases. In case No. SCD243045, he was sentenced to a total term of four years, together with various fines, and was given specified custody credits. In case No. SCD240587, he was sentenced to a total term of one year eight months, to run consecutive to the term imposed in case No. SCD243045 for a total term of five years eight months; the court also imposed various fines and fees 2 and gave him specified custody credits. Warnekedavis subsequently filed a notice of appeal. We affirm the judgment.
FACTS
In case No. SCD240587, Warnekedavis took $54 worth of items from a CVS Store, and he admitted serving a prior prison term. In case No. SCD243045, Warnekedavis on two occasions unlawfully, willfully and maliciously harassed the victim and made credible threats to her in violation of a court restraining order in effect at the time, and on a different occasion committed an assault on the victim while personally using a deadly weapon.
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 has not identified any possible or arguable issue.
We granted Warnekedavis 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. Warnekedavis has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.
3 DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
McDONALD, J.
WE CONCUR:
BENKE, Acting P. J.
IRION, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12