People v. Galaviz CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D064806 · 2014-07-29 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD247287
Trial judge: Eugenia A. Eyherabide
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Gilbert Nares (author), Richard D. Huffman, Sr., Cynthia Aaron

Analysis

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

The trial court accepted Galaviz's guilty plea to misdemeanor resisting an officer, denied probation, and imposed a sentence that included lifting a stay on a prior prison term. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, finding no reasonably arguable issues of error.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Affirmance of the judgment following a Wende/Anders review “A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issues raised by appellate counsel, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue.”	de novo	not reached	agree with court The court applied the standard Wende/Anders review, which requires the appellate court to independently examine the record for any reasonably arguable issues of error. The court found that the record did not support any such issues, leading to an affirmance. This is the standard procedure for cases where appointed counsel finds no arguable issues.
Validity of the guilty plea “The court accepted the guilty plea after questioning Galaviz, finding that Galaviz had entered the plea 'knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.'”	de novo	not reached	agree with court Appellate counsel identified the validity of the guilty plea as a possible issue. The reviewing court examined the record and found no error, noting the trial court's finding that the plea was entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. The record supports this finding as the court conducted the necessary colloquy.
Factual basis for the guilty plea “As the basis for his guilty plea, Galaviz admitted that he 'willfully and unlawfully resist[ed], delayed or obstructed a public peace officer in the discharge of his duties.'”	de novo	not reached	agree with court Appellate counsel raised the issue of whether the court complied with its duty to establish a sufficient factual basis under section 1192.5 and People v. Holmes. The reviewing court found no error, as the record shows Galaviz admitted to the specific elements of the offense charged.
Sentencing in accordance with the plea agreement “In accordance with the terms of the negotiated plea agreement, the court at sentencing denied probation, dismissed the remaining counts and allegations in the information, lifted the stay on the execution of the three-year prison term imposed in a prior case (SCD243722), and terminated Galaviz's probation in a third case (SCS255144).”	de novo	not reached	agree with court Appellate counsel questioned whether the sentencing complied with the plea agreement. The reviewing court found no error, as the record explicitly states the court acted 'In accordance with the terms of the negotiated plea agreement.'
Denial of the motion to suppress evidence under section 1538.5 “After informing Galaviz that a motion under section 1538.5 'is a noticed motion,' the court stated, 'Today you cannot bring it.'”	de novo	not reached	agree with court Appellate counsel raised the issue of the court's denial of the 1538.5 motion. The reviewing court found no error, as the trial court correctly informed the defendant that such a motion requires notice and could not be heard at that time. The defendant subsequently entered a guilty plea, rendering the issue moot.
Finding of mental competency “After reviewing the case file and Dr. Carroll's report, the court found Galaviz to be mentally competent to stand trial.”	de novo	not reached	agree with court Appellate counsel questioned the competency finding. The reviewing court found no error, as the trial court relied on a forensic psychiatry report and defense counsel stipulated to the findings. The record supports the competency determination.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Establishes the duty of appointed appellate counsel to review the record for error and the court's duty to conduct an independent review if no issues are found.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to file a brief identifying any arguable issues and allows the court to affirm if no arguable issues are found after independent review.
relied: People v. Holmes (2004) 32 Cal.4th 432 — Outlines the trial court's duty to establish a sufficient factual basis for a guilty plea.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is a standard Wende/Anders review. The court correctly applied the required standard of review, examined the record, and found no reasonably arguable issues. The reasoning is sufficient for this type of procedural disposition.

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

Galaviz, after a period of self-representation and a competency evaluation, pleaded guilty with counsel to misdemeanor resisting an officer (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)); the trial court dismissed the remaining counts, denied probation, lifted the stay on a three-year prison term in a prior case, and awarded presentence credits. On appeal appointed counsel filed a Wende brief identifying six possible issues, Galaviz filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no reasonably arguable issue, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Acceptance of the guilty plea as knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered “"knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily."”	unclear	correct	agree with court The record described shows a signed and initialed plea form, assistance of counsel, and court questioning before acceptance; nothing in the opinion suggests a defect. The court did not note whether a certificate of probable cause was obtained, which would ordinarily be required to challenge plea validity, but the result is unaffected.
Finding of a sufficient factual basis for the plea under section 1192.5 and Holmes “obstructed a public peace officer in the discharge of his duties."”	unclear	correct	agree with court Galaviz admitted the elements of section 148 on the plea form, and the preliminary hearing testimony recited in the opinion amply supports the admission; Holmes permits reliance on the defendant's admission and the record.
Sentencing in accordance with the negotiated plea agreement “In accordance with the terms of the negotiated plea agreement, the court at”	unclear	correct	agree with court The opinion states the court denied probation, dismissed remaining counts, lifted the stay on the prior three-year term, and awarded credits per the agreement; nothing indicates deviation from the bargain.
Permitting amendment of the complaint to add a section 69 count before the information was filed “In early May an amended complaint was filed against Galaviz realleging counts 1”	unclear	correct	agree with court Amendment of a complaint before the preliminary hearing, followed by arraignment and a not guilty plea, is routine and the count was in any event dismissed under the plea; the guilty plea also forecloses this non-jurisdictional challenge.
Refusal to hear the section 1538.5 motion at the preliminary hearing “"Today you cannot bring it."”	unclear	correct	agree with court The court told the self-represented defendant that the motion was a noticed motion not properly before it that day and he acquiesced; the motion was never renewed after counsel was appointed and before the plea, so no suppression ruling exists to review under section 1538.5, subdivision (m).
Finding that Galaviz was mentally competent to stand trial “qualifications and the findings in his report.”	unclear	correct	agree with court Defense counsel stipulated to the psychiatrist's qualifications and findings, and the court reviewed the report and case file before finding competency; a competency finding supported by an uncontroverted expert report is sustained under substantial evidence review.

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 should file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
relied: People v. Holmes (2004) 32 Cal.4th 432 — Under section 1192.5 the trial court must make an inquiry sufficient to establish a factual basis for a conditional plea, which may be satisfied by the defendant's admission or stipulation to the record.
missed: People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084 — A defendant may not raise issues going to the validity of a guilty plea on appeal without a certificate of probable cause under section 1237.5; the opinion reviewed plea-validity issues without noting whether a certificate was obtained.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the Wende/Kelly format, recites the facts and procedural history, lists counsel's potential issues, and states that independent review disclosed no arguable issue; nothing in the recited record contradicts that conclusion. It gives no analysis of the individual potential issues and does not address whether a certificate of probable cause was obtained for the plea-validity issues, leaving modest gaps.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 7/29/14 P. v. Galaviz 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, D064806

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD247287)

MICHAEL GALAVIZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Eugenia A.

Eyherabide, Judge. Affirmed.

Loleena Ansari, by appointment of the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Counsel has filed a brief asking this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Factual Background1 At around 9:30 p.m. on March 22, 2013,2 San Diego Police Department Officer Ryan Larson responded to a call about a disturbance involving a White male and an intoxicated Hispanic male who were arguing in an alley. At the scene, Officer Larson found Galaviz in an intoxicated state, staggering around, yelling loudly, and slurring his speech. When Officer Larson asked Galaviz to take a seat on the curb, Galaviz aggressively said, "I ain't going to do shit," and "Who the fuck are you?" When Galaviz took off his backpack, Officer Larson asked told him to stop what he was doing, but Galaviz did not comply. Galaviz then clenched his right and left fists and took what Officer Larson described as a "fighting stance." Fearful that Galaviz wanted to fight, Officer Larson pulled out his taser from his duty belt. Galaviz said, "I ain't doing shit,"

picked up his backpack, and began walking towards the officer. Concerned that Galaviz was going to hurt him, Officer Larson holstered his taser and sprayed Galaviz with "OC spray." Galaviz started to scream, clenched his fists again, flexed his arms, and again began walking towards Officer Larson. Officer Larson then unholstered his taser and tasered Galaviz, who was within arm's reach. Believing the taser was not effective because Galaviz started trying to pull out the wires and took a couple of quick steps 1 As Galaviz entered a guilty plea before a trial was held in this matter, the following factual background is derived from the reporter's transcript of the preliminary hearing held on May 21, 2013.

2 All further dates are to calendar year 2013. 2 towards him, Officer Larson abandoned the taser and took out his baton. Galaviz then began to comply. When Officer Larson told him to get on the ground, Galaviz complied and Officer Larson handcuffed him. Galaviz's behavior continued to be assaultive as he twice spit at Officer Larson yelling, "I'll fucking kill you!" Other officers eventually arrived at the scene and assisted Officer Larson in taking Galaviz into custody.

B. Procedural Background In early April the San Diego County District Attorney filed a felony complaint charging Galaviz with felony vandalism (count 1: Pen. Code,3 § 594, subds. (a) & (b)(1)), misdemeanor resisting an officer (count 2: § 148, subd. (a)(1)), and misdemeanor public intoxication (count 3: § 647, subd. (f)). The complaint alleged Galaviz had suffered specific probation denial priors (§ 1203, subd. (e)((4)) and two prison priors (§§ 667.5, subd. (b) & 668). Later that month the court granted Galaviz's motion for self- representation.

In early May an amended complaint was filed against Galaviz realleging counts 1 through 3 and adding a fourth count charging him with felony resisting an executive officer (§ 69). At the arraignment on the amended complaint, Galaviz entered a plea of not guilty. Galaviz thereafter filed a motion to suppress evidence pursuant to section 1538.5.

In late May the court conducted the preliminary hearing. During the testimony of the first witness, Galaviz asked the court whether he was allowed to "do a 1538 hearing 3 All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code. 3 motion" at the end of the preliminary hearing. After informing Galaviz that a motion under section 1538.5 "is a noticed motion," the court stated, "Today you cannot bring it."

Galaviz replied, "Okay." After considering the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing and hearing the arguments of the parties, the court held Galaviz to answer all of the counts and allegations set forth in the amended complaint.

In early June an information was filed realleging the counts4 and allegations set forth in the amended complaint, and Galaviz, who was still representing himself, thereafter filed a motion to dismiss in which he asked the court to "separate charge count ONE from charge FOUR." On June 5 the court suspended criminal proceedings pursuant to section 1368 and ordered a mental competency exam and hearing. Also on this day the court appointed a deputy public defender to represent Galaviz.

On August 15, Dr. Matthew Carroll from the County of San Diego Health and Human Services Agency filed a forensic psychiatry clinical report regarding Galaviz's mental competency. The next day defense counsel stipulated to both Dr. Carroll's qualifications and the findings in his report. After reviewing the case file and Dr.

Carroll's report, the court found Galaviz to be mentally competent to stand trial.

At the August 29 arraignment on the information, Galaviz entered a plea of not guilty. The next day, at a change-of-plea hearing, Galaviz─assisted by counsel─initialed and signed a guilty plea form indicating that he was pleading guilty to misdemeanor 4 The four counts were renumbered in the information as follows: Count 1: felony vandalism (§ 594, subds. (a) & (b)(1)); count 2: felony resisting an executive officer (§ 69); count 3: misdemeanor resisting an officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)); and count 4: misdemeanor public intoxication (§ 647, subd. (f)). 4 resisting an officer, as charged in count 3, subject to specified terms. As the basis for his guilty plea, Galaviz admitted that he "willfully and unlawfully resist[ed], delayed or obstructed a public peace officer in the discharge of his duties." The court accepted the guilty plea after questioning Galaviz, finding that Galaviz had entered the plea "knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily."

In accordance with the terms of the negotiated plea agreement, the court at sentencing denied probation, dismissed the remaining counts and allegations in the information, lifted the stay on the execution of the three-year prison term imposed in a prior case (SCD243722), and terminated Galaviz's probation in a third case (SCS255144). In case number SCD243722, Galaviz received 620 days of presentence credit. In this case (SCD247287), he received 328 days of presentence credit.

DISCUSSION

Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the proceedings below.

Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U. S. 738, counsel refers to the following as possible, but not arguable, issues: (1) Is Galaviz's guilty plea constitutionally valid?; (2) Did the court comply with its duty under section 1192.5 and People v. Holmes (2004) 32 Cal.4th 432 to establish a sufficient factual basis for the guilty plea?; (3) Was Galaviz sentenced in accordance with his guilty plea agreement?; (4) Did the court err in amending the complaint before the information was filed?; (5) Did the court err in denying Galaviz's 5 request for a hearing on his motion to suppress evidence under section 1538.5?; and (6)

Did the court err in finding Galaviz mentally competent?

We granted Galaviz permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He 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, including the possible issues raised by appellate counsel, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Galaviz has been represented adequately by appellate counsel.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NARES, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

AARON, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Holmes S102965 · 2004-02-19
People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12