People v. Carpenter CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD244225
- Trial judge
- Laura W. Halgren
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Alex C. McDonald (author), Judith L. Haller, Judith D. McConnell
Analysis
The trial court denied Carpenter's motion to withdraw her guilty plea, struck a specific allegation, and sentenced her to three years in state prison with concurrent terms and over $1.3 million in restitution. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after a Wende review found no reasonably arguable issues.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea“Counsel has identified as possible but not arguable issues: whether the court erred when it denied Carpenter's motion to withdraw her guilty plea” | unclear | not reached | agree with court agree with court |
Ineffective assistance of counsel at restitution hearing“and whether Carpenter received ineffective assistance of counsel at the victim restitution hearing.” | unclear | not reached | agree with court agree with court |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to review the record for error when no arguable issues are presented.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to file a brief identifying arguable issues or explaining why none exist.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for appointed counsel who finds no arguable issues. It accurately reflects that the court performed an independent review of the record and found no error.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court denied Alma Carpenter's motion to withdraw her guilty plea to grand theft, identity theft, and two counts of filing a false instrument, struck the section 186.11 aggravated white collar crime allegation, imposed an agreed three-year upper-term prison sentence with concurrent terms, and later ordered $1,378,286.44 in victim restitution. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief identifying no arguable issues, Carpenter filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of Carpenter's motion to withdraw her guilty plea (grounds: agreed sentence was illegal; plea not knowing and voluntary because she did not understand possible statute of limitations defenses)“The court denied the motion, struck the section 186.11, subdivision (a)(1) allegation, sentenced Carpenter to the upper term of three years in state prison on one of the section 115, subdivision (a) counts” | unclear | correct | agree with court The opinion does not analyze the motion on the merits; it treats the issue only as one identified by counsel as possible but not arguable and finds, after independent Wende review, no reasonably arguable issue. The facts recited (late discovery of the thefts and forged recordings, and the discovery-based tolling applicable to fraud and section 115 offenses) are consistent with the statute of limitations defenses being weak, and the court's striking of the section 186.11 allegation appears to address the illegal-sentence concern. Because the opinion gives no reasoning on the merits, agreement can only be provisional based on the limited record described. |
Victim restitution order of $1,378,286.44 and the related question whether Carpenter received ineffective assistance of counsel at the restitution hearing“At a subsequent hearing to set the amount of victim restitution, Carpenter was ordered to pay a total amount of $1,378,286.44.” | unclear | correct | unsure Carpenter agreed in her plea to pay full restitution to all victims, and the opinion discloses nothing about the restitution hearing beyond the amount and counsel's flagging of a possible ineffective assistance claim. Ineffective assistance claims depending on matters outside the record are ordinarily not cognizable on direct appeal, and the court's independent review found nothing arguable. The opinion provides too little detail for an independent assessment of the restitution amount. |
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 before affirming.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous may so advise the court and request permission to withdraw, accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, with the court then conducting its own review.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the standard Wende/Anders procedure: it summarizes the charges, plea, sentence, and restitution, notes the possible issues counsel identified, confirms Carpenter was given a chance to file a supplemental brief and did not, and states that independent review disclosed no arguable issues. It is a defensible result, but the opinion offers no substantive reasoning on the two flagged issues (the plea-withdrawal denial and the restitution-hearing ineffective assistance claim), so the reader cannot verify the analysis from the opinion itself.
Opinion
Filed 8/7/14 P. v. Carpenter 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, D064553
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD244225)
ALMA LYDIA CARPENTER,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Laura W.
Halgren, Judge. Affirmed.
Christopher Love, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
An amended information charged defendant Alma Carpenter with 37 counts, including two counts of using the personal identification of another (Pen. Code, § 530.5, subd. (a)),1 15 counts of forgery of seal and handwriting (§ 470, subd. (b)), six counts of 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. forgery of documents and items (§ 470, subd. (d)), seven counts of filing a false instrument (§ 115, subd. (a)), one count of false personation (§ 529, subd. (a)(3)), one count of vandalism over $400 (§ 594, subd. (a)(b)(1)), four counts of grand theft of personal property (§ 487, subd. (a)), and one count of notary fraud (Gov. Code, § 8214.2). The information also alleged Carpenter had committed two or more frauds resulting in losses of more than $100,000 (§ 186.11, subd. (a)(1)). The parties entered into a plea agreement pursuant to which Carpenter pleaded guilty to four charges: one count of grand theft of personal property (§ 487, subd. (a)), one count of using the personal identification of another (§ 530.5, subd. (a)), and two counts of filing a false instrument (§ 115, subd. (a)); and also admitted the section 186.11, subd. (a)(1)
allegation. As part of the plea agreement, the other charges were to be dismissed, and Carpenter understood and agreed that she would be sentenced to three years in state prison and be responsible to pay full restitution to all victims.
Carpenter moved to withdraw her guilty plea alleging (1) the sentence to which she had agreed was an illegal sentence, and (2) her plea was not knowing and voluntary because she did not understand she had possible statute of limitations defenses to some of the charges. The court denied the motion, struck the section 186.11, subdivision (a)(1)
allegation, sentenced Carpenter to the upper term of three years in state prison on one of the section 115, subdivision (a) counts, and sentenced Carpenter to terms for the remaining counts but ordered that those terms run concurrently. At a subsequent hearing to set the amount of victim restitution, Carpenter was ordered to pay a total amount of $1,378,286.44.
2 Carpenter subsequently filed a notice of appeal and obtained a certificate of probable cause. We affirm the judgment.
FACTS
On August 22, 2006, Carpenter stole money from Aurora Loan Services in an amount in excess of $950 (count 2-violation of § 487, subd. (a)), and the victim did not learn of the theft until May 2010. On July 24, 2007, Carpenter caused a forged deed of trust to be recorded with the County Recorder of San Diego (count 31-violation of § 115, subd. (a)), and no victim or law enforcement learned of this until June of 2009. On November 14, 2004, Carpenter caused a forged deed of trust to be recorded with the County Recorder of San Diego (count 37-violation of § 115, subd. (a)), and no victim or law enforcement learned of this until 2011. Finally, between July 17, 2007, and December 31, 2011, Carpenter obtained personal identifying information of Laelia Winstone and used that information for an unlawful purpose (count 26-violation of § 530.5).
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 (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738. Counsel has identified as possible but not arguable issues: whether the court erred when it denied Carpenter's motion to withdraw her guilty plea, and whether Carpenter received ineffective assistance of counsel at the victim restitution hearing.
3 We granted Carpenter permission to file a supplemental brief on her own behalf, but she 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. Carpenter has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
McDONALD, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
HALLER, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12