People v. Simmons CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D065309 · 2014-07-23 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD248262
Trial judge: Peter C. Deddeh
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), McINTYRE, Joan K. Irion

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T06:36Z · confidence low

The trial court convicted Simmons of forgery and burglary, denied a motion to strike prior convictions, and sentenced him to 32 months. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record found no reasonably arguable grounds for reversal.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of defense motion to strike serious/violent felony priors “Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the defense motion to strike the serious/violent felony conviction?”	abuse of discretion	not reached	unsure The court identified this as a possible issue but concluded it was not reasonably arguable, effectively finding no abuse of discretion without detailed analysis.
Overruling of defense objection regarding parolee status “Whether the trial court erred in overruling a defense objection that allegedly resulted in a possible impression that Simmons was a parolee?”	unclear	not reached	unsure The court listed this as a possible issue but determined it was not reasonably arguable, implying the error was harmless or non-existent.
Failure to give CALCRIM No. 332 instruction “Whether the trial court should have given CALCRIM No. 332 regarding expert witness testimony in light of the testimony of the prosecution's forensic expert?”	unclear	not reached	unsure The court considered this potential error but found it not reasonably arguable for reversal.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Establishes the procedure for appointed appellate counsel to conduct an independent review of the record when no arguable issues are identified.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires counsel to file a brief identifying any arguable issues and requests the court to review the record for error.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is a standard Wende/Anders review where the court independently examines the record for error. It is sound because it follows the required procedural steps for indigent appeals where counsel finds no issues.

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

A jury convicted Simmons of two counts of forgery and one count of burglary, the trial court found two prior strike convictions true, denied his motion to strike the priors, and imposed a determinate term of 32 months. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief identifying four possible but not arguable issues, Simmons filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no reasonably arguable grounds for reversal, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of defense motion to strike the serious/violent felony prior convictions (Romero motion) “1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the defense motion to strike the serious/violent felony conviction?”	abuse of discretion	correct	unsure The court conducted an independent Wende review with this issue in mind and found no arguable error. The opinion recites no facts about the priors or the trial court's reasons, so there is nothing in the opinion from which to identify a misapplication of the Romero/Williams factors; the 32-month term (low term doubled) is consistent with a second-strike sentence for a non-serious felony under the reformed Three Strikes law.
Trial counsel's failure to impeach a police officer with inconsistent statements from the first trial (ineffective assistance claim) “2. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to impeach one of the police officers with statements from the first trial which were inconsistent with the officer's testimony at the second trial?”	unclear	correct	unsure Ineffective assistance claims on direct appeal generally fail unless the record shows no plausible tactical reason for counsel's choice; the opinion does not describe the alleged inconsistency, so one cannot assess prejudice or deficient performance from the opinion alone. The court's conclusion that the issue is not arguable is plausible but unverifiable.
Overruling of a defense objection to testimony that allegedly implied Simmons was a parolee “3. Whether the trial court erred in overruling a defense objection that allegedly resulted in a possible impression that Simmons was a parolee?”	abuse of discretion	correct	unsure Evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion, and a fleeting or indirect reference to parole status is often found non-prejudicial, particularly where, as here, the defendant testified and the documentary and telephone-record evidence was strong. The opinion gives no detail about the testimony, so the model cannot independently confirm the ruling.
Failure to instruct with CALCRIM No. 332 on expert witness testimony concerning the prosecution's forensic expert “4. Whether the trial court should have given CALCRIM No. 332 regarding expert witness testimony in light of the testimony of the prosecution's forensic expert?”	de novo	correct	unsure Instructional omissions are reviewed de novo, but omission of the expert-witness instruction is ordinarily harmless where the expert's testimony (here, phone-record patterns) was not seriously disputed and the jury received general credibility instructions. The opinion does not state whether the instruction was requested or what the jury was told, so the model cannot be certain.

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 to determine whether any arguable issue exists.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous may so advise the court and request leave to withdraw, submitting a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion follows the required Wende/Anders procedure: it recites the facts and procedural history, lists the possible issues counsel identified, notes that the defendant declined to file his own brief, and states that the court reviewed the entire record and found no arguable grounds. As is typical of Wende dispositions, it offers no substantive analysis of the four flagged issues and does not cite the governing authority on strike-dismissal motions, so its correctness cannot be tested from the opinion itself, but nothing in it suggests a misreading of law.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 7/23/14 P. v. Simmons 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, D065309

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD248262)

MICHAEL DANGELO SIMMONS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Peter C.

Deddeh, Judge. Affirmed.

John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

A jury convicted Michael Dangelo Simmons of two counts of forgery (Pen.

Code,1 § 470, subd. (d)) and one count of burglary (§ 459). The trial court found two serious/violent (strike) felony prior convictions (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)).

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. The trial court denied a defense motion to strike the serious/violent felony priors.

Simmons was sentenced to a determinate term of 32 months in custody.

Simmons filed a timely notice of appeal.

Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating he is unable to identify any arguable issues on appeal.

(Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders).) Counsel requests that this court review the record on appeal to determine if there are any arguable issues for reversal of the judgment. We offered Simmons the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

On May 31, 2013, Simmons presented two checks to a bank teller. The teller told Simmons she would have to contact the account owner. Simmons waited while the teller attempted to contact the account owner. The bank discovered the checks were fraudulent and the teller called police. However, Simmons left the bank before police arrived.

Police apprehended Simmons at a bus stop near the bank. After first talking to someone who pretended to be the account owner, police successfully contacted the actual owner and found that the checks were fraudulent.

A computer forensic investigator from the District Attorney's office testified about the pattern of calls and text messages from Simmons's phone to the number of the person who impersonated the account owner to police.

2 Adrien Jayasinha, the owner of the account on which the fraudulent checks were made, testified the checks were not authorized and Simmons was not authorized to use his name.

Simmons testified the checks were mailed to him, and a person who impersonated the owner told him to take the checks to the bank. He did not know the actual owner of the account.

DISCUSSION

As we have previously noted, appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, indicating he is unable to identify any arguable appellate issues. Pursuant to Anders, supra, 386 U.S.738, counsel asks this court to review the record for possible error. Pursuant to Anders, counsel has identified the following possible, but not arguable issues:

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the defense motion to strike the serious/violent felony conviction?

2. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to impeach one of the police officers with statements from the first trial which were inconsistent with the officer's testimony at the second trial?

3. Whether the trial court erred in overruling a defense objection that allegedly resulted in a possible impression that Simmons was a parolee?

4. Whether the trial court should have given CALCRIM No. 332 regarding expert witness testimony in light of the testimony of the prosecution's forensic expert?

3 We have reviewed the entire record with the foregoing possible issues in mind.

We have not found any reasonably arguable grounds for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Simmons on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

McINTYRE, J.

IRION, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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