People v. Podgurski CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD246535
- Trial judge
- Eugenia Eyherabide
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Judith L. Haller, Judith D. McConnell
Analysis
The trial court accepted a guilty plea for failure to appear while on bail and imposed a two-year, eight-month consecutive sentence. 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 for reversal.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Affirmance of the judgment following a guilty plea and sentencing.“Having examined the record, we are satisfied there is no arguable issue for reversal on appeal contained in this record.” | de novo | correct | agree with court The court applied the standard Wende review to ensure the plea was voluntary and the sentence lawful. The record indicates the defendant was advised of rights, a factual basis was established, and the sentence fell within statutory limits, supporting the conclusion that no error occurred. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appellate counsel to conduct an independent review of the record to identify any reasonably arguable issues when no issues are raised.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires counsel to file a brief identifying any possible, though not arguable, issues and to notify the court and defendant of the intention to withdraw.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it fulfills the court's independent duty to review the record for error despite counsel's incomplete compliance with Anders. The court correctly identifies that the plea was voluntary and the sentence was within discretion, leading to a defensible affirmance.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court accepted Wanda Podgurski's guilty plea to failure to appear while on bail (Pen. Code, § 1320.5) with an on-bail enhancement admission (§ 12022.1, subd. (b)) and sentenced her to two years eight months consecutive to a sentence in another case. On appeal, counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief, the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Acceptance of guilty plea and admission of on-bail enhancement (advisement of rights, consequences, and factual basis)“Podgurski was fully apprised of her rights and the consequences of her plea. The record contains a factual basis for the plea” | unclear | correct | agree with court The court conducted an independent Wende review and found a proper advisement and factual basis; the opinion quotes the change-of-plea admission tracking the statutory elements of section 1320.5. Nothing in the opinion suggests a defect, and the Wende procedure was properly followed. |
Sentence of two years eight months consecutive to the sentence in case No. SCD227563“the trial court's sentencing was within its discretion and in accordance with the possible consequences with which Podgurski was advised.” | abuse of discretion | correct | agree with court The court reviewed the sentence for abuse of discretion and found it within the advised range. Section 1320.5 permits a felony term and section 12022.1 enhancement adds a consecutive term; the opinion does not detail the components, but the two-year-eight-month figure is consistent with a lawful computation and nothing in the record described suggests error. |
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 issues.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel filing a no-merit brief should identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal; the court found counsel's noncompliance harmless.
The appellate opinion: sound — The court applied the Wende/Anders framework correctly, independently reviewed the record, and explained why counsel's failure to list possible issues was harmless given the simplicity of a guilty-plea appeal. It did not cite People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 regarding the content of Wende opinions, but its brief description of the facts and procedure substantially satisfies that requirement.
Opinion
Filed 8/18/14 P. v. Podgurski 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, D065316
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD246535)
WANDA PODGURSKI,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Eugenia Eyherabide, Judge. Affirmed.
Boyce & Schaefer and Robert E. Boyce, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
Wanda Podgurski entered a guilty plea to one count of failure to appear while on bail (Pen. Code,1 § 1320.5). She admitted the allegation that at the time of the offense she had been released from custody on bail (§ 12022.1, subd. (b)). The trial court 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. imposed a sentence of two years eight months to be served consecutively to a sentence imposed in case No. SCD227563.2 Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders)
requesting this court to review the record on appeal for possible error. We offered Podgurski the opportunity to file her own brief on appeal, but she has not responded.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Since this is an appeal from a guilty plea, we only have the appellant's statement of the offense from the change of plea form. She admitted that she "unlawfully and willfully failed to appear as required in court having been charged with the commission of a felony and released from custody on bail and to evade the process of the court."
DISCUSSION
As we have indicated, appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, indicating he has been unable to identify any reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal. He asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. Appellate counsel has not complied with the requirement of Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, to identify any possible, but not arguable issues. However, given the simplicity of this case, we are able to conduct an appropriate review of the appeal in a search for any reasonably arguable issues. While we do not approve of counsel's failure 2 The case is now pending in this court in case No. D064114. 2 to fully comply with Anders, we are satisfied any error on his part is harmless beyond any reasonable doubt.
We have examined the entire record. Podgurski was fully apprised of her rights and the consequences of her plea. The record contains a factual basis for the plea and the trial court's sentencing was within its discretion and in accordance with the possible consequences with which Podgurski was advised. She was represented by counsel throughout the proceeding. Counsel filed a statement in mitigation and vigorously advocated for the minimum punishment required for the offense. Having examined the record, we are satisfied there is no arguable issue for reversal on appeal contained in this record.
Although appellate counsel did not comply with the mandates of Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, we find that Podgurski has been represented by competent counsel on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
HALLER, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12