People v. Saminathen CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D064785 · 2014-07-14 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCN322019
Trial judge: David L. Berry
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Gilbert Nares (author), Judith D. McConnell, Cynthia Aaron

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T06:37Z · confidence high

The trial court accepted a guilty plea for possession of methamphetamine and imposed drug treatment probation under Penal Code section 1210.1. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after a Wende/Anders review found no reasonably arguable issues.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Affirmance of the judgment following a Wende/Anders review of the record for error. “We have reviewed the entire record in accordance with Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, and have not found any reasonably arguable appellate issues.”	de novo	not reached	agree with court The court applied the standard Wende/Anders review to determine if any arguable issues existed in the record. It concluded that no such issues were present, thereby affirming the judgment. This is the standard procedural outcome for such appeals where counsel identifies no arguable errors.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Establishes the duty of appointed appellate counsel to conduct an independent review of the record for error when no arguable issues are identified.
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 are found, subject to court review.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly follows the established Wende/Anders procedure for reviewing a record where counsel identifies no arguable issues. It accurately states the standard of review and the result of that review without needing to address the specific merits of the diversion claim because it was deemed not arguable.

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 Saminathen's guilty plea to possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)), suspended imposition of sentence, and placed him on three years' drug treatment probation under Penal Code section 1210.1. On appeal, counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief identifying the voluntariness of the plea as a possible issue; 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 and grant of Penal Code section 1210.1 drug treatment probation; challenge that the plea was involuntary because counsel allegedly failed to advise of Penal Code section 1000 diversion “We have reviewed the entire record in accordance with Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, and have not found any reasonably arguable appellate issues.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The court conducted the independent record review required by Wende and Anders and found no arguable issue. The involuntary-plea/ineffective-assistance claim depends on what counsel told the defendant, which is outside the appellate record (no preliminary hearing, probation report waived), so it is properly a habeas matter rather than an issue arguable on direct appeal. The opinion gives no analysis beyond the conclusory statement, so agreement rests on the procedural posture rather than any explained reasoning.

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 frivolous may so advise the court and identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, after which the court decides whether the case is wholly frivolous.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the standard Wende/Anders procedure, notes the certificate of probable cause, identifies the one potential issue, and affirms after independent review, which is a defensible result given that the counsel-advice claim depends on facts outside the record. However, it offers no explanation of why the Penal Code section 1000 issue is not arguable and does not note that such a claim would ordinarily be pursued by habeas petition.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 7/14/14 P. v. Saminathen 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, D064785

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN322019)

GREGORY JOSEPH SAMINATHEN,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, David L.

Berry, Judge. Affirmed.

Denise M. Rudasill, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant Gregory Joseph Saminathen was charged with a violation of Health and Safety Code section 11377, subdivision (a), possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine. Thereafter, he pleaded guilty to that charge. Pursuant to the plea agreement, imposition of sentence was suspended for three years and Saminathen was granted three-years' drug treatment probation under Penal Code section 1210.1.

Saminathen filed a notice of appeal and requested a certificate of probable cause asserting that his guilty plea was involuntary because his attorney misled him into pleading guilty and accepting the drug treatment probation by not informing him that he could have received Penal Code section 1000 drug diversion instead. On October 15, 2013, a certificate of probable cause was granted.

Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) raising possible, but not arguable, issues. We offered Saminathen the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On August 4, 2013, Saminathen was arrested for possession of a usable quantity of methamphetamine.1

DISCUSSION

As we have previously noted, appellate counsel has filed a brief indicating he is unable to identify any argument for reversal and asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders, supra, 386 U.S.

738, the brief identifies the following possible, but not arguable issues:

1 Because Saminathen pleaded guilty before the preliminary hearing and waived his probation report, there is no transcript from which we can provide more detailed facts concerning the circumstances surrounding his arrest. 2 1. Was Saminathen's plea involuntary because he would not have pleaded guilty and accepted probation if he had been informed of the Penal Code section 1000 drug diversion option for his offense?

We have reviewed the entire record in accordance with Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, and have not found any reasonably arguable appellate issues. Competent counsel has represented Saminathen on appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NARES, J.

WE CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

AARON, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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