People v. Suzuki CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCN273301
- Trial judge
- Daniel B. Goldstein
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Joan K. Irion (author), Judith L. Haller, Cynthia Aaron
Analysis
The trial court found the defendant guilty of misdemeanor assault, resisting an executive officer, disobeying a court order, and attempting to harm a police animal following a bench trial. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende and finding no reasonably arguable issues of error.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Judgment of conviction and sentence“A review of the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the issues suggested by counsel and Suzuki, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue.” | de novo | not reached | agree with court The court applied the standard of review for Wende/Anders appeals, which requires an independent review of the record to determine if there are any reasonably arguable issues. The court found no such issues, thereby affirming the judgment. The reasoning is consistent with the procedural requirements for appointed counsel appeals where no specific argument is presented. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Establishes the requirement for appointed appellate counsel to file a brief identifying potential issues and for the court to conduct an independent review of the record if no argument is presented.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to file a brief identifying any arguable issues, even if none are found, and allows the court to review the record independently.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for reviewing a record when appointed counsel presents no argument. It appropriately dismisses the appellant's supplemental filings as lacking merit or being outside the scope of the appeal.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionAfter a bench trial, the San Diego Superior Court found Toshio Suzuki guilty of two misdemeanor assaults, resisting an executive officer, disobeying a court order, and attempting to harm a police animal, and placed him on three years' formal probation. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief, Suzuki filed pro. per. supplemental materials, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issue, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Judgment of conviction on all counts following bench trial (sufficiency of the evidence identified by counsel as a possible but not arguable issue)“Pursuant to Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, counsel identified as a possible but not arguable” | unclear | correct | agree with court The court did not articulate a standard, though substantial evidence would govern a sufficiency challenge. The recited facts—Suzuki swinging a three-foot metal rod at deputies executing an eviction order, striking at the police dog, and resisting until subdued—readily support each count, and nothing in the opinion suggests an evidentiary gap. |
Rejection of Suzuki's supplemental contentions that the judges, prosecutor and public defenders were not properly appointed, that the eviction violated prior judgments, and that case documents lacked signatures“record and have found no support or merit to Suzuki's supplemental arguments as a basis” | unclear | correct | agree with court The court considered the pro. per. contentions as required in a Wende appeal and found them unsupported by the record or authority. The contentions as described are collateral to the validity of the conviction (the propriety of the eviction is not a defense to assaulting deputies executing a facially valid order), and the court's summary disposition is defensible, though it gives little explanation. |
Competency findings (December 2011 and August 2012) permitting trial to proceed after prior incompetency commitment“The trial court found Suzuki mentally competent to stand trial in December 2011” | unclear | not reached | unsure The opinion recites the competency history as background but identifies no issue with it, and neither counsel nor Suzuki raised it. The court's independent review implicitly found nothing arguable, but the opinion provides no detail from which to evaluate the findings. |
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 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 conduct its own examination of the record.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the Wende/Anders procedure, affords the defendant an opportunity to file a supplemental brief, identifies and addresses his pro. per. contentions, and affirms after independent review; the recited facts amply support the convictions. It is nonetheless brief, states no standard of review, and disposes of the supplemental arguments in a single conclusory sentence without explaining why each lacks merit.
Opinion
Filed 4/16/14 P. v. Suzuki 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, D064401
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN273301)
TOSHIO SUZUKI,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Daniel B.
Goldstein, Judge. Affirmed.
Dawn S. Mortazavi, under appointment by the Court of Appeal; Toshio Suzuki, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Toshio Suzuki appeals from a judgment following a guilty verdict in a bench trial on charges of misdemeanor assault (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)),1 resisting an 1 Unless otherwise indicated all further statutory references are to the Penal Code. executive officer (§ 69), disobeying a court order (§ 166, subd. (a)(4)), and attempting to harm or interfere with a police animal (§ 664).
Appointed appellate counsel filed a brief presenting no argument for reversal, but inviting this court to review the record for error in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We invited Suzuki to file a supplemental brief. Suzuki responded with several documents, some of which were not pertinent to this appeal and which we determined were inappropriate for filing, but some of which we have deemed to constitute Suzuki's supplemental appellate briefing. After having independently reviewed the entire record for error as required by Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S.
738 (Anders) and Wende, we affirm.
I
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Suzuki was renting an apartment for which he had failed to pay rent, causing his landlord to obtain an eviction order. When deputy sheriffs arrived to force Suzuki's eviction on February 18, 2010, Suzuki refused to open the door. The deputies therefore gained entrance to the apartment by breaking a glass patio door. When deputies came toward Suzuki inside the apartment, Suzuki swung at them with a three-foot-long metal rod. A deputy told Suzuki to drop the rod or he would send in his police dog, but Suzuki continued swinging and struck some furniture while trying to hit the police dog. One of the deputies fired a beanbag rifle at Suzuki; another deputy deployed his taser on Suzuki;
and the police dog was deployed to bite Suzuki's leg. The deputies then struggled with Suzuki and got him under control.
2 Suzuki was charged with two counts of assault with a deadly weapon or force likely to cause great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)); one count of resisting an executive officer (§ 69); one count of disobeying a court order (§ 166, subd. (a)(4)); and one count of attempting to harm or interfere with a police animal (§ 664). The assault counts were reduced to misdemeanors on the People's motion.
Suzuki was found to be mentally incompetent to stand trial in April 2010 and was committed to a psychiatric hospital.
The trial court found Suzuki mentally competent to stand trial in December 2011 and August 2012, and held a bench trial in October 2012. The trial court found Suzuki guilty on all counts and placed Suzuki on three years' formal probation.
Suzuki filed a notice of appeal.
II
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings in the trial court. Counsel presented no argument for reversal but invited this court to review the record for error in accordance with Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.
Pursuant to Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, counsel identified as a possible but not arguable issue: whether there was sufficient evidence presented to uphold the conviction.
After we received counsel's brief, we afforded Suzuki an opportunity to file a supplemental brief. Suzuki responded with a large volume of documents, many of which 3 contain arguments unrelated to his conviction,2 but some of which we have deemed to constitute Suzuki's supplemental briefing for this appeal. Although Suzuki's supplemental briefing on the issues concerning his conviction is difficult to follow and unsupported by any legal authority or citation to the record, he repeatedly raises the following issues: (1) the trial court judges, the district attorney and the public defenders were not properly appointed ; (2) his eviction was "against the past Court judgments";
and (3) certain documents related to his case lack signatures. We have reviewed the record and have found no support or merit to Suzuki's supplemental arguments as a basis for reversing his conviction.
A review of the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the issues suggested by counsel and Suzuki, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Suzuki has been adequately represented by counsel on this appeal.
2 In Suzuki's arguments unrelated to his conviction that appear in the documents we have accepted for filing, some of Suzuki's main subjects are the purported inadequacy of the mental health treatment he is currently receiving, and his beliefs about the influence of electromagnetic transmissions. This appeal is not a proper forum to raise those issues as they are not within the scope of the trial court's judgment of conviction, and we accordingly do not consider them here. 4 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.
IRION, J.
WE CONCUR:
HALLER, Acting P. J.
AARON, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12