People v. Riley CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D064572 · 2014-05-13 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCE330082
Trial judge: John M. Thompson
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: McINTYRE (author), Judith D. McConnell, Patricia D. Benke

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T06:41Z · confidence low

The trial court sentenced the defendant to a total term of four years and eight months in Case A, two years in the instant case (Case B), and two years in Case C, striking certain enhancement allegations in the latter two cases. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, finding no reasonably arguable issues.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Sentencing in Case A, including the imposition of a restitution fine and fees/costs without a specific hearing on ability to pay. “The court granted 72 days of credit for time served and an additional 72 days for conduct credits, for a total of 144 days. It ordered a section 1202.4 restitution fine of $2,500, with the same amount stayed pending completion of parole (§ 1202.45). Finally, it required Riley "pay the normal fees and costs associated with the commit."”	de novo	not reached	agree with court agree with court
Scope of the notice of appeal regarding whether it covered all three cases or only the instant case. “Defense counsel filed two virtually identical notices of appeal for the instant case. The other cases on which Riley was sentenced were not referenced. The notices stated that the appeal was based on the sentence and other matters occurring after the plea that did not affect the validity of the plea.”	de novo	not reached	agree with court agree with court

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Mandates independent review of the record by the appellate court when appointed counsel finds no arguable issues.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to file a brief identifying potential issues even if they are not arguable.

The appellate opinion: sound — sound

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 sentenced Riley after guilty pleas in three consolidated cases, imposing a total term of four years eight months in Case A with concurrent two-year terms in the instant case and Case C, striking priors in the instant case, awarding credits, and imposing restitution fines plus unspecified 'normal fees and costs.' On appeal appointed counsel filed a Wende brief identifying two possible issues, Riley filed nothing, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Sentencing judgment (terms, strikes, credits, fines) reviewed under Wende for any arguable error “Our review of the record pursuant to Wende, including the possible issues listed by counsel pursuant to Anders, has disclosed no reasonably arguable issues on appeal.”	de novo	correct	agree with court Wende requires the appellate court to independently review the entire record; the opinion recites the sentence in detail, including the strike doubling, consecutive section 12022.1 enhancement, and credits, none of which appears facially unlawful on the facts stated. The court followed the Wende/Anders procedure, gave Riley an opportunity to file a supplemental brief, and stated its conclusion. The result is defensible on this record.
Whether the notice of appeal, which referenced only the instant case, could be construed to cover all three cases “whether (1) the notice of appeal could be construed to address all three cases”	unclear	not reached	unsure The court listed this as a possible issue raised by counsel but did not analyze it, concluding generally that no arguable issue existed. Because the notices referenced only Case B, and no error in the other cases is identified, the lack of analysis does not affect the result, but the opinion gives no reasoning on the point.
Imposition of unspecified 'normal fees and costs' without stating the basis for each fine or fee or holding an ability-to-pay hearing “the court erred when it failed to specify the basis for each fine or fee and conduct a hearing on Riley's ability to pay”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion summarily finds this issue not arguable without explanation. An oral order to pay unspecified 'normal fees and costs' is in tension with authority requiring that all fines and fees and their statutory bases be specified in the judgment and abstract (People v. High). The record quoted does not show what the abstract of judgment contains, so it cannot be determined whether an actual defect exists, but the opinion skips any discussion.

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 wholly frivolous may so advise the court and request to withdraw, accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
missed: People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192 — All fines, fees, and penalty assessments must be set forth separately with their statutory bases in the judgment and the abstract of judgment; a generic reference to fees is insufficient.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court correctly followed the Wende/Anders procedure, recited the sentence in detail, offered the defendant a chance to brief, and reached a defensible affirmance. It did not, however, explain why the unspecified 'normal fees and costs' order and the scope of the notice of appeal were not arguable, leaving a gap on the fees issue counsel flagged.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 5/13/14 P. v. Riley 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, D064572

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCE330082)

JOHN WARREN RILEY,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, John M. Thompson, Judge. Affirmed.

Harmon Reed Webb for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In April 2013, John Warren Riley pleaded guilty to unlawfully taking a vehicle and being in possession of a controlled substance (Case C, SCE328715). In July 2013, Riley pleaded guilty to petty theft with priors, a felony (the instant case, Case B, SCE330082). He also admitted allegations that he had a prison prior, two strike priors and that he committed the charged offense while released from custody pending judgment on an earlier offense (Pen. Code, § 12022.1, subd. (b)). (Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.) At the same time, Riley pleaded guilty to possessing a controlled substance and the misdemeanor offense of giving false information to a peace officer (Case A, SCE331018). He also admitted allegations that he had a prison prior, two strike priors and that he committed the charged offense while on bail.

At a later sentencing hearing, the court stated that it had reviewed correspondence from Riley and Riley's mother. It found Riley was not a suitable candidate for probation and sentenced him in Case A to a total term of four years and eight months, consisting of the low term of 16 months for count 1, doubled to 32 months because of a strike prior conviction, and then ordered 24 months, to be served consecutively, for the section 12022.1 allegation. On count 2, it ordered 180 days, concurrent with count 1 and struck the prison prior. The court granted 72 days of credit for time served and an additional 72 days for conduct credits, for a total of 144 days. It ordered a section 1202.4 restitution fine of $2,500, with the same amount stayed pending completion of parole (§ 1202.45).

Finally, it required Riley "pay the normal fees and costs associated with the commit."

For the instant case, the court exercised its discretion to strike the prior strike conviction allegations, the prison prior and the section 12022.1 allegation. It ordered that Riley serve the middle term of two years concurrently with the sentence in Case A. The court granted 70 days of credit for time served and an additional 70 days for conduct credits, for a total of 140 days. Restitution orders under sections 1202.4 and 1202.45 2 were set at $500 each and he was required to pay "normal fees and costs associated with the commit."

As to Case C, the court sentenced Riley to the middle term of two years on both counts, to be served concurrently with each other and the term in Case A. The court granted 73 days of credit for time served and an additional 72 days for conduct credits, for a total of 145 days. Restitutions orders under sections 1202.4 and 1202.45 were set at $500. Finally, the court disposed of two trailing misdemeanor cases by revoking probation, reinstating it on the condition that Riley serves a jail term in the amount of his previously earned credits and then it terminated probation in both cases.

Defense counsel filed two virtually identical notices of appeal for the instant case.

The other cases on which Riley was sentenced were not referenced. The notices stated that the appeal was based on the sentence and other matters occurring after the plea that did not affect the validity of the plea.

DISCUSSION

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

Under Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), he listed as possible but not arguable issues, whether (1) the notice of appeal could be construed to address all three cases, and (2) the court erred when it failed to specify the basis for each fine or fee and conduct a hearing on Riley's ability to pay. We granted Riley permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded.

3 Our review of the record pursuant to Wende, including the possible issues listed by counsel pursuant to Anders, has disclosed no reasonably arguable issues on appeal.

Competent counsel has represented Riley on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

MCINTYRE, J.

WE CONCUR:

MCCONNELL, P. J.

BENKE, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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