People v. Turner CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D065057 · 2014-05-20 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD249266
Trial judge: Dwayne K. Moring
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Alex C. McDonald (author), Judith L. Haller, McINTYRE

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T06:40Z · confidence high

The trial court rejected the defendant's motion to dismiss a prior strike allegation under People v. Romero and sentenced her to four years in prison following a guilty plea. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record found no reasonably arguable issues.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of motion to dismiss prior strike allegation under People v. Romero “After rejecting Turner's motion under People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 to dismiss the remaining prior strike allegation, the court sentenced her to a total term of four years”	unclear	not reached	unsure The opinion does not analyze the trial court's decision on the Romero motion; it only notes the motion was rejected. Because the appellate court did not review the merits of this specific ruling, no view is expressed.
Guilty plea and sentencing “The parties entered into a plea bargain pursuant to which Turner pleaded guilty to the corporal injury charge, and admitted one of the prior strike allegations”	unclear	not reached	unsure The opinion does not analyze the validity of the plea or the sentencing calculation; it only notes the plea was entered and the sentence imposed. Because the appellate court did not review the merits of this specific ruling, no view is expressed.

Authorities

relied: People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 — Establishes the standard for dismissing prior strike allegations under the Three Strikes law.
relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to conduct an independent review of the record for error when no issues are presented.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to file a brief identifying any arguable issues and to request leave to withdraw if none exist.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the Wende/Anders framework for reviewing a record when appointed counsel presents no arguments. It accurately states that the independent review disclosed no reasonably arguable issues, which is the proper 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 Turner's guilty plea to corporal injury on a cohabitant with an admitted prior strike, denied her Romero motion to dismiss the strike, and sentenced her to four years plus fines. On appeal under Wende/Anders, appointed counsel raised no arguable issues, Turner filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of Romero motion to dismiss the admitted prior strike allegation “After rejecting Turner's motion under People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 to dismiss the remaining prior strike allegation, the court sentenced her to a total term of four years, plus various fines.”	abuse of discretion	correct	unsure The opinion identifies abuse of discretion as the governing standard for a Romero ruling but provides no facts about the trial court's reasoning; the court simply states its Wende review found no arguable issue. With a 1985 strike and a sentence within the bargained maximum, the result is plausible, but the opinion gives no record detail to evaluate independently.
Advisement of consequences of guilty plea (acceptance of plea) “whether Turner was misadvised of the consequences of her guilty plea”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion recites that the plea bargain disclosed a maximum of 8 years, a $10,000 fine, and four years of parole or PRCS, and the four-year sentence fell within that range; the court found no arguable misadvisement. The opinion does not detail the advisements, so independent evaluation is limited.

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.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal frivolous must file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
relied: People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 — A trial court has discretion under Penal Code section 1385 to dismiss a prior strike allegation in furtherance of justice.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the standard Wende/Anders procedure, notes the possible issues counsel identified, and states that independent review disclosed no arguable issues. It does not discuss the factors governing Romero discretion (e.g., People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148) or the content of the plea advisements, which is typical for Wende dispositions but leaves the reasoning unstated.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 5/20/14 P. v. Turner 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, D065057

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD249266)

CHERYL TURNER,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Dwayne K. Moring, Judge. Affirmed.

Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Cheryl Turner was charged with corporal injury to a spouse or roommate (Pen.

Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)),1 and it was specially alleged she personally used a dangerous and deadly weapon in the commission of the offense (§§ 12022, subd. (b)(1) & 1192.7, 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. subd. (c)(23)). Turner was also charged with assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd.

(a)(1)) and it was specially alleged she personally used a deadly weapon in connection with that offense (§ 1192.7, subd. (c)(23)). The felony complaint also alleged Turner had two prior serious felony convictions (§§ 667, subd. (a)(1), 668 & 1192.7), and had suffered numerous prior strike convictions within the meaning of sections 667, subdivisions (b) through (i), 1170.12 and 668.

The parties entered into a plea bargain pursuant to which Turner pleaded guilty to the corporal injury charge, and admitted one of the prior strike allegations, with the further agreement the other charges and allegations would be dismissed, and with the understanding she could receive a maximum term of imprisonment of 8 years, a $10,000 fine, and four years of parole or postrelease community supervision.

After rejecting Turner's motion under People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)

13 Cal.4th 497 to dismiss the remaining prior strike allegation, the court sentenced her to a total term of four years, plus various fines. Turner obtained a certificate of probable cause and filed a notice of appeal. We affirm the judgment.

FACTS

Turner admitted that, on July 2, 2013, she inflicted corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition on her cohabitant. She also admitted that, in 1985, she was convicted of a violation of Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(1), alleged as a prior strike.

DISCUSSION

Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to 2 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 identifies as possible, but not arguable, issues: whether Turner was misadvised of the consequences of her guilty plea and whether the trial court abused its discretion when it denied her motion to dismiss the prior strike allegation she admitted.

We granted Turner permission to file a supplemental brief on her own behalf, but she 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. Turner has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

McDONALD, J.

WE CONCUR:

HALLER, Acting P. J.

McINTYRE, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Superior Court (Romero) S045097 · 1996-06-20
People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12