People v. Degrate CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D064861 · 2014-04-08 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD247435
Trial judge: Laura Halgren
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Alex C. McDonald (author), Richard D. Huffman, Sr., O'Rourke

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T06:42Z · confidence high

The trial court sentenced the defendant to a total of six years in prison following a plea agreement, including a restitution fine and limited conduct credits. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after conducting an independent review of the record under People v. Wende and finding no reasonably arguable issues.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Imposition of a $1,680 restitution fine “Counsel has identified as possible issues: whether the court abused its discretion in imposing the restitution fine of $1,680”	abuse of discretion	not reached	agree with court The court performed an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende and found no reasonably arguable appellate issues, thereby affirming the judgment without addressing the specific merits of the restitution fine argument.
Limitation of conduct credits to 15 percent “whether the court erred in limiting Degrate's conduct credits to 15 percent of time served rather than awarding day-for-day credits”	unclear	not reached	agree with court The court performed an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende and found no reasonably arguable appellate issues, thereby affirming the judgment without addressing the specific merits of the conduct credits argument.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to file a brief identifying potential issues and mandates the court to independently review the record for error when counsel finds no arguable issues.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to file a brief identifying potential issues and mandates the court to independently review the record for error when counsel finds no arguable issues.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for indigent appeals where counsel identifies no issues. The court explicitly states it reviewed the record and found no reasonably arguable issues, which is the required standard for affirmance in this context.

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 Degrate's guilty plea to assault with a deadly weapon with a personal firearm-use enhancement, sentenced him to the stipulated six-year term, imposed a $1,680 restitution fine, and limited conduct credits to 15 percent under Penal Code section 2933.1. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief identifying the fine and credit limitation as possible issues; the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Imposition of a $1,680 restitution fine under Penal Code section 1202.4 “whether the court abused its discretion in imposing the restitution fine of $1,680”	abuse of discretion	correct	agree with court The fine falls within the statutory range of section 1202.4, subdivision (b), and equals the statutory formula amount ($280 minimum for a 2013 offense multiplied by six years and one count), so no abuse of discretion appears on the face of the opinion; the court properly found no arguable issue after independent Wende review.
Limitation of presentence conduct credits to 15 percent under Penal Code section 2933.1 “whether the court erred in limiting Degrate's conduct credits to 15 percent of time served rather than awarding day-for-day credits”	de novo	correct	agree with court Degrate admitted personally using a firearm under section 12022.5, subdivision (a), which makes the assault a violent felony under section 667.5, subdivision (c)(8); section 2933.1 therefore mandates the 15 percent cap, and the court correctly found no arguable error.
Judgment of conviction and six-year sentence following guilty plea (independent Wende review of entire record) “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 sentence matches the negotiated six-year lid, the gang allegation was dismissed per the agreement, and counsel and the court identified no other arguable issues; nothing in the opinion suggests error, though the record summarized is minimal.

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 error before affirming.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal frivolous may so advise the court and request to withdraw, but must file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, and the court must then examine the record.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court followed the required Wende/Anders procedure, offered the defendant a chance to file a supplemental brief, and independently reviewed the record, and the two issues counsel flagged (a formula-amount restitution fine and the mandatory 15 percent credit cap for a violent felony involving personal firearm use) have obvious statutory answers. The opinion is extremely brief and does not explain why those issues lack merit, but the result is clearly correct on the facts stated.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

Filed 4/8/14 P. v. Degrate 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, D064861

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD247435)

KESHAWN DEVON DEGRATE,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Laura Halgren, Judge. Affirmed.

James M. Crawford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Keshawn Degrate was charged with numerous offenses and, pursuant to a plea agreement limiting his sentence to a prison term of six years and dismissing the other charges, he pleaded guilty to one count of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code,1 1 Statutory references are to the Penal Code. § 245, subd. (a)) and admitted he personally used a firearm in committing the offense (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)), and that the offense was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, and in association with a criminal street gang. (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1).) The court sentenced Degrate to a total term of six years, composed of three years for the section 245 offense and a consecutive three-year term for the section 12022.5, subdivision (a), allegation. The court dismissed the gang allegation, imposed a restitution fine of $1,680, granted 383 days of custody credits and limited Degrate to 15 percent conduct credits pursuant to section 2933.1. Degrate filed a timely notice of appeal. We affirm the judgment.

FACTS

Degrate assaulted the victim with a firearm in association with and for the benefit of a criminal street gang.

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 identified as possible issues: whether the court abused its discretion in imposing the restitution fine of $1,680, and whether the court erred in limiting Degrate's conduct credits to 15 percent of time served rather than awarding day- for-day credits.

We granted Degrate 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 2 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738 has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Degrate has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

McDONALD, J.

WE CONCUR:

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

O'ROURKE, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12
In Re Lifschutz Crim. 14131 · 1970-04-15