People v. Korol CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D065069 · 2014-08-05 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCN310266
Trial judge: K. Michael Kirkman
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed and remanded with directions.
Area: criminal
Panel: Alex C. McDonald (author), Judith D. McConnell, Patricia D. Benke

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T06:35Z · confidence high

The trial court accepted a negotiated guilty plea to nine counts of residential burglary and sentenced the defendant to a stipulated term of eight years and eight months. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record, but remanded the case with directions to correct the abstract of judgment to accurately reflect that the sentences on counts 13 through 15 were lower terms rather than middle terms.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Refusal to permit withdrawal of guilty plea based on ineffective assistance of counsel “whether the court abused its discretion by refusing to permit Korol to withdraw his plea on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel”	abuse of discretion	not reached	agree with court The opinion states that appointed counsel identified this as a possible but not arguable issue under Anders v. California. The court conducted an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende and concluded that no reasonably arguable appellate issues were disclosed, thereby affirming the judgment without addressing the merits of the specific claim.
Denial of request to represent himself at sentencing “whether the court abused its discretion by denying Korol's request to represent himself at sentencing”	abuse of discretion	not reached	agree with court The opinion lists this as a possible but not arguable issue raised by appointed counsel. The court performed a Wende review of the record and found no reasonably arguable issues, resulting in an affirmation of the judgment without a specific ruling on the merits of the self-representation claim.
Denial of Marsden motion for new counsel “whether the court abused its discretion by denying his Marsden motion (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118)”	abuse of discretion	not reached	agree with court The opinion identifies this as a possible but not arguable issue. Following an independent review of the record under Wende and Anders, the court determined that no reasonably arguable appellate issues existed and affirmed the judgment, effectively upholding the trial court's denial without detailed analysis.
Correction of abstract of judgment “The trial court is directed to amend the abstract of judgment to reflect that the two-year sentences on counts 13 through 15 are lower terms”	unclear	error	agree with court The appellate court identified a clerical error in the abstract of judgment, which erroneously referred to the two-year sentences on counts 13 through 15 as middle terms. The court remanded the case with specific directions to correct this error to match the stipulated sentencing terms.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Mandates independent review of the record by appellate counsel when no arguable issues are presented.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to file a brief identifying possible, but not arguable, issues and to request permission to withdraw.
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 follows the Wende/Anders protocol for cases where appointed counsel finds no arguable issues. It accurately identifies a clerical error in the abstract of judgment and provides the necessary remedial direction.

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 Perry Korol's negotiated guilty plea to nine counts of residential burglary, denied his motion to withdraw the plea, his Faretta request to represent himself at sentencing, and his Marsden motion, and sentenced him to a stipulated eight years eight months in prison. On a Wende appeal with no arguments raised, the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, affirmed the judgment, and remanded for correction of the abstract of judgment to reflect that the sentences on counts 13 through 15 are lower terms.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of Korol's motion to withdraw his guilty plea based on ineffective assistance of counsel “whether the court abused its discretion by refusing to permit Korol to withdraw his plea on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel”	abuse of discretion	correct	unsure The opinion identifies this as a possible Anders issue and states that independent Wende review disclosed no reasonably arguable issue, but gives no facts about the motion or the basis for denial. Without any record detail, the result cannot be independently evaluated.
Denial of Korol's request to represent himself at sentencing “whether the court abused its discretion by denying Korol's request to represent himself at sentencing”	abuse of discretion	correct	unsure The opinion lists this as a potential issue and finds nothing arguable after record review, but recites no facts about the timing or circumstances of the request, so the correctness of the denial cannot be assessed from the opinion.
Denial of Korol's Marsden motion to substitute appointed counsel “whether the court abused its discretion by denying his Marsden motion (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118)”	abuse of discretion	correct	unsure The court applied the correct Marsden framework by reference and found no arguable error after independent review, but the opinion contains no description of the Marsden hearing or the grounds asserted.
Abstract of judgment describing the two-year sentences on counts 13 through 15 as middle terms “The abstract of judgment erroneously refers to the two-year sentences on counts 13 through 15 as middle terms. We order the abstract of judgment corrected accordingly.”	de novo	error (other)	agree with court The court orally imposed lower terms on counts 13 through 15; the abstract must reflect the oral pronouncement of judgment, so ordering correction of the clerical error is proper and routine.

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 no meritorious issues may file a brief identifying anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
relied: People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 — A defendant seeking substitution of appointed counsel must be permitted to state the reasons, and the court must inquire into them before ruling.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the standard Wende procedure, identifies the Anders issues counsel flagged, confirms independent record review, and corrects a clerical error in the abstract, which is a defensible result. It supplies no factual detail about the three denied motions, so the reader cannot verify the conclusion that none presented an arguable issue.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 8/5/14 P. v. Korol 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, D065069

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN310266)

PERRY KOROL,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, K. Michael Kirkman, Judge. Affirmed and remanded with directions.

Alex Kreit, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In November 2012, Perry Korol entered a negotiated guilty plea to nine counts of residential burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460; counts 1, 8-15). In August 2013, the court sentenced him to prison for a stipulated term of eight years eight months: the two-year lower term on count one; consecutive terms of 16 months (one third the middle term) on counts 8 through 12; and concurrent two-year lower terms on counts 13 through 15.1 Korol appeals. We affirm the judgment and remand the case for correction of the abstract of judgment.

BACKGROUND

Korol entered a hotel room, rented by a resident, with the intent to commit theft, on nine separate occasions.

DISCUSSION

Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. 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 mentions as possible, but not arguable, issues: (1) whether the court abused its discretion by refusing to permit Korol to withdraw his plea on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel; (2) whether the court abused its discretion by denying Korol's request to represent himself at sentencing; and (3) whether the court abused its discretion by denying his Marsden motion (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118).

We granted Korol permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded. A review of the record pursuant to Wende and Anders, including the possible 1 The abstract of judgment erroneously refers to the two-year sentences on counts 13 through 15 as middle terms. We order the abstract of judgment corrected accordingly. 2 issues listed pursuant to Anders, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues.

Korol has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to amend the abstract of judgment to reflect that the two-year sentences on counts 13 through 15 are lower terms and to forward the corrected abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

MCDONALD, J.

WE CONCUR:

MCCONNELL, P. J.

BENKE, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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