People v. White CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D064782 · 2014-06-12 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD244845
Trial judges: Laura W. Halgren; Dwayne K. Moring
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed with directions.
Area: criminal
Panel: Judith L. Haller (author), Richard D. Huffman, Sr., Joan K. Irion

Analysis

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

The trial court denied Michael White's motions to withdraw his guilty plea and for new counsel, sentencing him to four years in prison for robbery, grand theft, and failure to appear. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, finding no arguable issues on appeal, but directed the trial court to correct clerical errors in the minute order and abstract of judgment regarding the statutory citation and sentence length.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea and Marsden motion “We have examined the record for error, including the possible issues identified by appellate counsel, and conclude there are no reasonably arguable appellate issues.”	unclear	not reached	agree with court The appellate court conducted a Wende/Anders review of the entire record and concluded that the issues raised by counsel were not reasonably arguable, thereby affirming the judgment without addressing the merits of the trial court's discretion.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Establishes the procedure for appointed appellate counsel to review the record for arguable issues 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 requesting the court to review the record.
relied: People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 — Establishes the standard for evaluating a defendant's motion for new counsel.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the Wende/Anders framework to review the record for arguable errors. It appropriately identifies and directs the correction of specific clerical errors in the judgment documents.

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 Michael White's guilty plea to robbery with a knife-use enhancement, grand theft, and failure to appear on bail, denied his later motions to withdraw the plea and for substitute counsel under Marsden, and sentenced him to the stipulated four years in prison. On a Wende/Anders appeal with no supplemental brief from the defendant, the Court of Appeal reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, affirmed the judgment, and directed the superior court to correct clerical errors in the minute order and abstract of judgment.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea “whether the court abused its discretion in denying Michael's motion to withdraw his guilty plea and Marsden motion”	abuse of discretion	correct	unsure The opinion identifies the issue as a possible but not arguable one under Wende and states that the full record was reviewed; no facts about the basis of the withdrawal motion are recited, so the conclusion cannot be independently tested but nothing in the opinion suggests error.
Denial of Marsden motion for substitute counsel “The court held a Marsden hearing; denied his motion for new counsel; and denied his motion to withdraw his guilty plea.”	abuse of discretion	correct	unsure The trial court held the required Marsden hearing before denying the motion, which satisfies the procedural requirement of People v. Marsden; the opinion gives no detail of the defendant's complaints, so the merits cannot be evaluated from the opinion alone.
Sentence imposed in accordance with the plea agreement (four years) “whether the court sentenced Michael in accordance with the plea agreement.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The prosecutor stipulated to a four-year sentence and the court imposed exactly four years (three-year midterm for robbery plus one year for the knife enhancement, with concurrent terms on the other counts), which matches the bargain as described in the opinion.
Minute order and abstract of judgment entries (statutory subdivision for count 3 and length of concurrent terms on counts 3 and 7) “The minute order and abstract of judgment state the concurrent sentences on counts three and seven are for two years, whereas at the sentencing hearing the court made an oral pronouncement selecting three-year concurrent terms for these counts.”	de novo	error (other)	agree with court The oral pronouncement of judgment controls over the clerical record, and the plea was to section 487, subdivision (a), so directing correction of the abstract and minute order to conform to the oral sentence and the actual conviction is the standard and correct remedy for clerical error.

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 may file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, and the court then reviews the record.
relied: People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 — When a defendant seeks substitution of appointed counsel, the trial court must hold a hearing and permit the defendant to explain the basis for the request.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the standard Wende procedure, identifies the possible issues raised by counsel, confirms independent review of the record, and properly orders correction of clerical discrepancies between the oral pronouncement and the abstract. Because it is a Wende affirmance, it does not explain the substance of the plea-withdrawal or Marsden rulings, which leaves the reader unable to verify those conclusions from the opinion itself.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 6/12/14 P. v. White 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, D064782

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD244845)

MICHAEL WHITE,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Dwayne K. Moring and Laura W. Halgren, Judges. Affirmed with directions.

Lewis A. Wenzell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

Michael White (Michael) pled guilty to robbery with personal use of a knife;

grand theft of personal property; and failing to appear while released on bail.1 1 We identify defendant by his first name to distinguish him from codefendant Melissa White, whom we refer to below. Michael's appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979)

25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth the procedural history and facts of the case and possible but not arguable issues. Counsel presents no argument for reversal but requests that we review the entire record for error. We granted Michael permission to file a brief on his own behalf, and he has not responded. We have reviewed the entire record and conclude there are no arguable issues. We affirm the judgment. We also order correction of several clerical errors in the minute order and abstract of judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The charges against Michael arose from incidents that occurred at several locales in December 2012. According to information in the probation report, on December 4, 2012, Michael took several food items from a store, concealed them in his backpack, and attempted to leave the store without paying. When loss prevention officer Jose Mondragon approached Michael, Michael hit him in the head with his fist and brandished a knife, saying " 'So help me I'll stab you if you don't leave me alone!' " Mondragon backed away and Michael left on a motorcycle. Michael had dropped his backpack during the confrontation; the backpack contained the stolen items and information identifying Michael.

On December 4, 2012, Lisa Ruckteschler's purse was stolen. While sitting at a table at a restaurant, Ruckteschler felt a tug on her purse and saw a male wearing a motorcycle helmet walking quickly away from the scene.

2 On December 6, 2012, Michael and codefendant Melissa White rode by on a motorcycle and grabbed Julie Fowler's purse from the top storage area of a shopping cart while Fowler was unloading grocery items into her vehicle. A short time later, defendants were arrested at a nearby gas station where they attempted to use Fowler's bank card. In defendants' possession, the authorities found Fowler's purse, cell phone and wallet, and two additional wallets. Melissa's backpack also contained Ruckteschler's driver's license and her other identification or membership cards.

On March 1, 2013, Michael was released from custody on bail. On March 12, 2013, he failed to appear for a readiness conference and a warrant was issued for his arrest.

Guilty Plea and Sentence Michael was charged as follows: For the December 4 incident involving loss prevention officer Mondragon: robbery with an enhancement for personal use of a deadly or dangerous weapon (a knife) (count 1) and assault with a deadly weapon (count 2). For the December 6 incident involving Fowler at the store: grand theft of personal property (count 3). For the December 6 incident at the gas station: receiving stolen property belonging to Fowler and/or Ruckteschler (count 4). For the December 4 incident involving Ruckteschler: grand theft of personal property (count 5) and grand theft from a person (count 6). Michael was also charged with failure to appear while released on bail on March 12, 2013, with an enhancement for commission of an offense while released from custody.

3 On August 13, 2013, Michael pled guilty to count 1 robbery with the knife use enhancement (Pen. Code2 §§ 211, 12022, subd. (b)(1)); count 3 grand theft of personal property (§ 487, subd. (a)); and count 7 failure to appear while released on bail (§ 1320.5). The prosecutor agreed to dismiss the balance of the complaint and stipulated to a four-year sentence.

On September 11 and 16, 2013, Michael moved to withdraw his guilty plea and to obtain new counsel. The court held a Marsden3 hearing; denied his motion for new counsel; and denied his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Thereafter, the court sentenced Michael to four years in prison and imposed applicable statutory fines and fees.

The sentence consisted of a three-year midterm for robbery; a consecutive one-year term for the personal knife use enhancement; and three-year concurrent upper terms for grand theft of personal property and failure to appear. Michael waived his right to be personally present at any future victim restitution hearing.

DISCUSSION

Appellate counsel has set forth the following possible but not arguable issues:

(1) whether the court abused its discretion in denying Michael's motion to withdraw his guilty plea and Marsden motion, and (2) whether the court sentenced Michael in accordance with the plea agreement.

2 Subsequent unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.

3 People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118. 4 We have examined the record for error, including the possible issues identified by appellate counsel, and conclude there are no reasonably arguable appellate issues.

Competent counsel has represented Michael on this appeal.

There are several clerical errors in the sentencing minute order and abstract of judgment that should be corrected by the superior court. (1) The minute order and abstract of judgment cite defendant's conviction on count three as under section 487, subdivision (c), whereas the correct citation is section 487, subdivision (a). (2) The minute order and abstract of judgment state the concurrent sentences on counts three and seven are for two years, whereas at the sentencing hearing the court made an oral pronouncement selecting three-year concurrent terms for these counts.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. The superior court is directed to correct the minute order and the abstract of judgment to (1) identify the count three conviction as section 487, subdivision (a), and (2) identify the concurrent terms for counts 3 and 7 as three years. The superior court shall transmit a copy of the amended abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

HALLER, J. WE CONCUR:

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

IRION, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12
People v. Marsden Crim. 14119 · 1970-02-26