People v. Mejia CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D064948 · 2014-08-07 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD246886
Trial judge: Laura W. Halgren
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Alex C. McDonald (author), Judith D. McConnell, Joan K. Irion

Analysis

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

The trial court accepted Mejia's guilty plea to stalking and residential burglary and sentenced him to an upper term for stalking and a concurrent lower term for burglary. 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.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Independent review of the record for error (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 has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues.”	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 to determine if there are any reasonably arguable issues. The court found none, which is the standard outcome in such cases where counsel identifies no arguable errors and the record does not reveal obvious defects in the plea or sentencing.
Validity of guilty plea and factual basis “Counsel identifies the following possible, but not arguable, issues for our review: (1) is Mejia's guilty plea constitutionally valid; (2) did the trial court comply with its section 1192.5 duty to establish a sufficient factual basis for Mejia's guilty plea”	de novo	not reached	agree with court The court noted that counsel identified the validity of the plea and the factual basis as potential issues but deemed them not arguable. The court's independent review of the record, which included the specific admissions made by Mejia, supported the conclusion that the plea was valid and the factual basis was sufficient, thus no error was found.
Denial of probation and selection of upper term “(3) did the court abuse its discretion by denying him probation; (4) did the court abuse its discretion by selecting the upper term for his stalking conviction”	abuse of discretion	not reached	agree with court The court identified the denial of probation and the selection of the upper term as potential issues of abuse of discretion. However, in the context of a Wende review, the court found no reasonably arguable issues in the record to support a claim that the trial court abused its discretion in these sentencing decisions.
Section 654 stay of sentence “(5) did the court err by not staying the sentence for his residential burglary conviction pursuant to section 654?”	de novo	not reached	agree with court The court noted the potential issue regarding the failure to stay the sentence for residential burglary under Section 654. The independent review of the record did not reveal a reasonably arguable issue that the trial court erred in this regard, likely because the offenses were distinct or the plea agreement resolved the issue.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Establishes the duty of appellate counsel to file a brief identifying arguable issues and the court's duty to independently review the record if no issues are identified.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires that appointed counsel on appeal must file a brief identifying arguable issues, even if none exist, and the court must independently review the record.

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. The court explicitly states it conducted an independent review of the record and found no reasonably arguable issues, which is the required standard of review in this context.

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 Mejia's guilty plea to stalking and residential burglary and sentenced him to a three-year upper term for stalking with a concurrent two-year lower term for burglary. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief identifying five possible issues, Mejia 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
Wende/Anders independent review of the entire record for arguable appellate issues “has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues”	de novo	correct	agree with court The court followed the required procedure: counsel filed a no-issue brief, the defendant was given the chance to file a supplemental brief and did not, and the court independently reviewed the record and stated the facts, charges, and sentence as required. Nothing in the opinion suggests the procedure was defective.
Acceptance of guilty plea as constitutionally valid and supported by a sufficient factual basis under section 1192.5 “did the trial court comply with its section 1192.5 duty to establish a sufficient factual basis for Mejia's guilty plea”	unclear	correct	agree with court The opinion recites a factual basis admitted by Mejia tracking the elements of stalking and burglary, which supports the section 1192.5 finding. The opinion does not discuss whether these plea-validity issues were even cognizable given the notice of appeal was limited to sentencing or post-plea matters and no certificate of probable cause is mentioned, but the absence of analysis does not change the result.
Denial of probation “did the court abuse its discretion by denying him probation”	abuse of discretion	correct	unsure The opinion provides no facts about the probation decision or the court's reasons, so I cannot independently evaluate it; the court's conclusion that no arguable issue exists is plausible for a residential burglary conviction but unverifiable from the opinion.
Selection of the upper term for the stalking conviction “The trial court sentenced Mejia to a three-year upper term for the stalking conviction and a two-year concurrent lower term for the residential burglary conviction.”	abuse of discretion	correct	unsure No aggravating factors or statements of reasons are recited in the opinion, so the correctness of the upper-term choice cannot be assessed from the text; the Wende finding of no arguable issue is accepted on faith of the court's independent review.
Failure to stay the burglary sentence under section 654 “did the court err by not staying the sentence for his residential burglary conviction pursuant to section 654”	substantial evidence	correct	unsure Whether stalking (a course-of-conduct offense) and the burglary shared a single intent and objective is a factual question on which the opinion gives no facts; the concurrent term was not stayed and the court found no arguable issue, but the opinion contains no analysis permitting independent confirmation.

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 to withdraw, accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, and the court must then examine the record.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion correctly follows the Wende/Anders procedure, gives the defendant an opportunity to file a supplemental brief, and sets out the facts, charges, plea basis, and sentence. It does not note that the plea-validity issues identified by counsel were likely not cognizable absent a certificate of probable cause given the limited notice of appeal, and it offers no analysis of the sentencing issues, which is typical for Wende opinions but leaves the result unverifiable from the text.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 8/7/14 P. v. Mejia 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, D064948

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD246886)

MARCOS CHAVEZ MEJIA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Laura W.

Halgren, Judge. Affirmed.

Cindi B. Mishkin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Marcos Chavez Mejia appeals a judgment following his guilty plea to one count of stalking (Pen. Code, § 646.9, subd. (a))1 and one count of residential burglary (§§ 459, 460).

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In March 2013, a complaint was filed, charging Mejia with one count of stalking (§ 646.9, subd. (a)), two counts of false imprisonment by violence (§§ 236, 237, subd.

(a)), one count of assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd.

(a)(4)), one count of making a criminal threat (§ 422), and one count of residential burglary (§§ 459, 460). In July 2013, pursuant to a plea agreement, Mejia pleaded guilty to one count of stalking (§ 646.9, subd. (a)) and one count of residential burglary (§§ 459, 460). Mejia admitted that the factual basis for his plea was that he "unlawfully, maliciously harass[ed] Laura Uribe and did make a credible threat with the intent to place her in reasonable fear for her safety," and also "unlawfully enter[ed] Laura Uribe's studio, an inhabited dwelling, with the intent to commit a felony."

The trial court sentenced Mejia to a three-year upper term for the stalking conviction and a two-year concurrent lower term for the residential burglary conviction.

Mejia timely filed a notice of appeal of the judgment based on his sentence or other matters occurring after his plea.

DISCUSSION

Mejia's appointed counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. Counsel presents no argument for reversal of the judgment, but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738. Counsel identifies the following possible, but not arguable, issues for our review: (1) is Mejia's guilty plea constitutionally valid; (2)

2 did the trial court comply with its section 1192.5 duty to establish a sufficient factual basis for Mejia's guilty plea; (3) did the court abuse its discretion by denying him probation; (4) did the court abuse its discretion by selecting the upper term for his stalking conviction; and (5) did the court err by not staying the sentence for his residential burglary conviction pursuant to section 654?

We granted Mejia permission to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf, but 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 has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Mejia has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

McDONALD, J.

WE CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

IRION, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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