People v. Mancha CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCS265572
- Trial judge
- Frances M. Devaney
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- O'Rourke (author), Alex C. McDonald, Patricia D. Benke
Analysis
The trial court accepted a guilty plea from the defendant to two counts and sentenced him to a stipulated term of 40 months in prison. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after finding no reasonably arguable issues on appeal pursuant to a Wende review.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Acceptance of guilty plea and imposition of sentence“The court asked if Mancha was freely and voluntarily giving up his right to a trial, and Mancha replied in the affirmative.” | de novo | not reached | agree with court The appellate court did not independently review the validity of the plea or the sentence because appointed counsel identified no arguable issues and the court's own Wende review disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. |
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 any possible, though not arguable, issues for the court's review.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the Wende/Anders framework for reviewing a record where counsel finds no arguable issues. The court explicitly states it reviewed the entire record and found no reasonably arguable issues, which is the required standard for this type of appeal.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionMancha pleaded guilty to illegal possession of a firearm and possession of methamphetamine, admitted a strike as to count 1, and was sentenced to a stipulated 40-month prison term. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief, Mancha filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Acceptance of the guilty plea as knowing and voluntary (the possible but not arguable issue identified by appellate counsel under Anders)“The court asked if Mancha was freely and voluntarily giving up his right to a trial, and Mancha replied in the affirmative.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The opinion recites that the trial court verified the change of plea form was signed and discussed with counsel, that counsel answered Mancha's questions, and that Mancha affirmed the waiver was free and voluntary; the appellate court conducted an independent Wende/Anders review of the entire record and found no arguable issue. Nothing in the opinion suggests any defect in the plea colloquy, and the recited facts support the conclusion, though the opinion is summary and does not detail the full advisement. |
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.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal lacking in merit may file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, and the court then decides whether the appeal is wholly frivolous.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the standard Wende/Anders procedure: it notes counsel's brief, the possible issue identified, the defendant's opportunity to file his own brief, and the court's independent review of the entire record. The result is defensible on the recited facts, but the opinion is brief and does not discuss whether a certificate of probable cause was obtained for a challenge to the plea's validity or detail the advisements given, so the reasoning cannot be fully verified from the opinion alone.
Opinion
Filed 6/12/14 P. v. Mancha 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, D064797
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCS265572)
OSCAR CARLOS MANCHA,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Frances M.
Devaney, Judge. Affirmed.
Christian C. Buckley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
The People charged Oscar Carlos Mancha with illegal possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, § 30305, subd. (a)(1); count 1); and possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a); count 2). As to both counts, it was alleged that he had suffered a strike within the meaning of the "Three Strikes" law. (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 667, subds. (b)-(i).)
Mancha pleaded guilty to the two counts, and admitted the enhancement allegation as to count 1 only. In exchange, the People dismissed the enhancement allegation as to count 2. The court sentenced Mancha to a stipulated term of 40 months in prison.
Before taking the plea, the court verified Mancha had signed and discussed the change of plea form with his attorney, who had satisfactorily answered Mancha's questions. The court asked if Mancha was freely and voluntarily giving up his right to a trial, and Mancha replied in the affirmative.
DISCUSSION
Appointed counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings in the trial court. 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. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel refers to the possible but not arguable issue of whether Mancha's plea was knowing and voluntary. We granted Mancha permission to file a brief on his own behalf, but he did not do so.
Our review of the entire record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issue referred to by appellate counsel has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Mancha was competently represented by counsel on this appeal.
2 DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
O'ROURKE, J.
WE CONCUR:
BENKE, Acting P. J.
McDONALD, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12