People v. Adams CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD247754
- Trial judge
- Eugenia Ehyerabide
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Cynthia Aaron (author), Judith D. McConnell, Gilbert Nares
Analysis
The trial court sentenced the defendant to 32 months in prison for failing to register as a sex offender, applying one of four admitted strike priors after dismissing the other three. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after a Wende review found no reasonably arguable issues of error.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of defendant's request to dismiss the fourth strike prior“Did the trial court abuse its discretion in declining appellant's request to dismiss the fourth strike prior?” | abuse of discretion | not reached | unsure The opinion does not analyze the merits of the trial court's decision to retain the fourth strike prior. It only notes that counsel identified this as a possible but not arguable issue and that the court's independent review disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Therefore, the appellate court did not affirm or reverse the ruling on the merits, but rather found no error warranting reversal. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Establishes the standard for appellate review when appointed counsel files a brief stating there are no arguable issues, requiring the court to independently review the record for error.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to file a brief identifying any arguable issues and requesting the court to review the record, even if counsel believes the appeal is frivolous.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for reviewing appeals where counsel finds no arguable issues. It accurately states that the independent review of the record disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues, which is the proper basis for affirming in such a context.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court accepted Adams's guilty plea to failing to register as a sex offender (Pen. Code, § 290.018, subd. (b)) with admission of four strike priors, dismissed three strikes but declined to dismiss the fourth, and imposed the low term of 16 months doubled to 32 months. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief identifying the Romero denial as a possible issue, Adams 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of defendant's request to dismiss the fourth prior strike conviction (Romero motion) at sentencing“At sentencing, the trial court granted Adams's request to dismiss three of the strike priors, but denied the request as to the fourth.” | abuse of discretion | correct | agree with court Counsel framed the issue as abuse of discretion and the court, after Wende review, found it not reasonably arguable. The trial court struck three of four strikes and imposed the low term doubled, which reflects an individualized exercise of leniency; the record as recited (a 2010-2013 registration violation by a defendant with four prior strikes who admitted knowing of the requirement) gives no indication the refusal to strike the final strike fell outside the bounds of reason. The opinion does not describe the trial court's stated reasons, so full evaluation is not possible, but nothing in the opinion suggests legal error. |
Acceptance of guilty plea and admission of strike priors, and imposition of sentence of 32 months (low term doubled)“The court sentenced Adams to the low term of 16 months, which the court doubled to 32 months based on the strike.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The court conducted an independent Wende review of the entire record and found no arguable issue. The sentence recited is lawful: the low term for a section 290.018, subdivision (b) felony is 16 months, and doubling under the Three Strikes law for one remaining strike yields 32 months. No certificate of probable cause issue is discussed, and nothing in the opinion indicates a defect in the plea. |
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 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 the court must then examine the record to determine whether the appeal is frivolous.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the required Wende/Anders procedure: it recites the facts and proceedings, identifies counsel's possible issue, notes the defendant was given an opportunity to file a supplemental brief, and states that independent review disclosed no arguable issue. It does not discuss the Romero/Carmony standard or the trial court's reasons for retaining the fourth strike, which is permissible in a Wende affirmance but leaves the reader unable to verify the discretionary ruling from the opinion alone.
Opinion
Filed 8/28/14 P. v. Adams 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, D065000
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD247754)
RONNIE WILLIAMS ADAMS,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Eugenia Ehyerabide, Judge. Affirmed.
Gideon Margolis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. I.
INTRODUCTION
Defendant Ronnie Williams Adams appeals from a judgment following his plea of guilty to one count of failing to register as a sex offender, and his admission that he has suffered four prior strike convictions.
II.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Adams was convicted on June 13, 1984 of two offenses that required lifetime registration as a sex offender.1 On March 27, 2013, San Diego police officer Danielle Spilker-Wilson assisted Adams in filling out police form No. 8102, the form for sex registrants. Adams registered himself as a "transient" on the form. After checking the databases, Officer Spilker-Wilson determined that Adams had been registering as a transient from June 29, 2010 through 2013.
Adams did not seem to fit the profile of a transient. Adams had listed Kaiser Permanente as his employer. Officer Spilker-Wilson contacted Kaiser Permanente regarding Adams's address. According to Adams's personnel file, he had listed his address as 9060 Gramercy Drive, No. 33. Officer Spilker-Wilson contacted the apartment manager at the Gramercy Apartments at 9072 Gramercy Drive. The apartment manager said that Adams lived in an apartment there, and had been living there for quite some time, in apartment 33.
1 Because Adams pled guilty, we take these facts from the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing. 2 On April 23, 2013, Adams again registered himself with the police as a "transient"
in the area of Ruffin Road and Aero Drive. At that point, Adams was taken into custody.
After being advised of his Miranda2 rights, Adams admitted that he lived in the apartment on Gramercy Drive. He acknowledged that he knew about the requirement that he register as a sex offender, but explained that it was difficult for a person subject to the sex registration requirements to rent an apartment.
Adams had apparently originally signed an 18-month lease at the Gramercy Apartments on October 15, 2010, and had been living there after the expiration of the original lease period on a month-to-month basis.
Adams had otherwise complied with his sex-registration requirements from 1999 until 2010.
The San Diego County District Attorney filed a felony complaint charging Adams with one count of failing to register as a sex offender (Pen. Code, § 290.018, subd. (b);
count 1). The complaint also alleged that Adams had suffered four strike priors (Pen.
Code, §§ 667, subds. (b) through (i), 1170.12). Following a preliminary hearing, the complaint was deemed an information. Adams entered a plea of not guilty.
Adams subsequently pled guilty to count 1 and admitted having suffered the four strike priors.
2 Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436. 3 At sentencing, the trial court granted Adams's request to dismiss three of the strike priors, but denied the request as to the fourth. The court sentenced Adams to the low term of 16 months, which the court doubled to 32 months based on the strike.
Adams filed a timely notice of appeal.
III.
DISCUSSION
Adams'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 as a possible, but not arguable, issue for our review:
"Did the trial court abuse its discretion in declining appellant's request to dismiss the fourth strike prior?"
We granted Adams 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. Adams has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.
4 IV.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
AARON, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
NARES, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12