People v. Dille CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D065521 · 2014-08-29 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCE334834
Trial judge: Lantz Lewis
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Alex C. McDonald, Patricia D. Benke

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T06:34Z · confidence low

The trial court convicted Dille of petty theft after a prior, declined to strike a serious/violent felony prior, and sentenced him to four years in prison. 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
Denial of motion to strike serious/violent felony prior conviction “Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to strike the serious/violent prior felony conviction (People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497).”	abuse of discretion	not reached	unsure The court identified the issue as 'possible, but not arguable' and stated it had reviewed the record but found no reasonably arguable issues for reversal, effectively declining to address the merits of the Romero claim.
Denial of request for appointment of replacement counsel “Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Dille's request for the appointment of replacement counsel (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118).”	abuse of discretion	not reached	unsure The court identified the issue as 'possible, but not arguable' and stated it had reviewed the record but found no reasonably arguable issues for reversal, effectively declining to address the merits of the Marsden claim.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to conduct an independent review of the record for error when no arguable issues are identified.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to file a brief identifying any possible issues and to request leave to withdraw, with the court conducting an independent review.
relied: People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 — Establishes the standard for striking prior convictions under the Three Strikes law.
relied: People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 — Establishes the standard for appointing replacement counsel.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it follows the Wende/Anders protocol for reviewing a record when counsel identifies no arguable issues. However, it provides no substantive legal analysis for the specific claims raised, relying solely on the court's independent review.

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

A jury convicted Robert Daniel Dille of petty theft with a prior theft conviction, he admitted a prison prior and a serious/violent felony prior, and the trial court struck the prison prior but declined to strike the strike prior, sentencing him to four years in prison. On appeal, counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief identifying possible Romero and Marsden issues, Dille filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of Dille's Romero motion to strike the serious/violent felony prior conviction “Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to strike the serious/violent prior felony conviction (People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497).”	abuse of discretion	correct	agree with court The opinion identifies the Romero issue only as a possible, not arguable, issue flagged by counsel under Anders and states that after reviewing the entire record no arguable issue exists. The opinion contains no description of the trial court's reasoning or the defendant's record, so there is no basis in the opinion to find error; the Wende procedure applied is the correct one.
Denial of Dille's Marsden request for appointment of replacement counsel “Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Dille's request for the appointment of replacement counsel (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118).”	abuse of discretion	correct	agree with court The court treated the Marsden denial as a possible but non-arguable issue and found no arguable error after full record review. The opinion gives no details of the Marsden hearing, so nothing in it suggests the trial court failed to conduct an adequate inquiry or abused its discretion.

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 who finds an appeal without merit should so advise the court and identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
relied: People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 — A trial court has discretion under section 1385 to strike a prior serious/violent felony conviction allegation under the Three Strikes law.
relied: People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 — A defendant seeking substitution of appointed counsel must be given an opportunity to state the reasons, and the court must inquire into the complaints.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the standard Wende/Anders procedure: counsel filed a no-issues brief, the defendant was invited to and did not file a supplemental brief, and the court independently reviewed the record and found no arguable issue. The result is defensible under Wende, though the opinion does not explain why the Romero and Marsden rulings were not arguable, leaving the reader unable to evaluate the merits from the opinion alone.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 8/29/14 P. v. Dille 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, D065521

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCE334834)

ROBERT DANIEL DILLE,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Lantz Lewis, Judge. Affirmed.

Sheila O'Connor, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

A jury convicted Robert Daniel Dille of petty theft after a prior theft conviction (Pen. Code,1 § 484 & 666). Dille thereafter admitted one prison prior (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), and one serious/violent felony prior conviction (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)).

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. The court declined to strike the serious/violent felony prior conviction, but did strike the prison prior. Dille was sentenced to a determinate term of four years in prison.

Dille filed a timely notice of appeal.

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) indicating she is unable to identify any reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal. We offered Dille the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

At about 3:40 in the morning of October 22, 2013, a person later identified as Dille was seen looking into various parked cars and entering into those where the door was not locked.

When Officer Melissa Calderon arrived at the scene she observed a person wearing a black "hoodie" as described by the complaining witness. Calderon saw the person look directly at her and then turn and run away. She chased the person and apprehended him at a nearby 76 station. The person seized was Dille.

A search of the backpack Dille was wearing revealed a number of items later found to have been stolen from one of the parked cars.

Dille testified in his own behalf. He said he found the backpack in a dumpster shortly before he encountered the police. He denied taking any items, denied running from police, and denied jumping over any fences.

2 DISCUSSION

As we have previously noted, appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, indicating she is unable to identify any reasonably arguable issues for reversal and asks this court to review the record for error. Pursuant to Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, counsel has identified the following possible, but not arguable issues for reversal on appeal:

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to strike the serious/violent prior felony conviction (People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)

13 Cal.4th 497).

2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Dille's request for the appointment of replacement counsel (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118).

We have reviewed the entire record and have not been able to identify any reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Dille on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

BENKE, Acting P. J.

McDONALD, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Superior Court (Romero) S045097 · 1996-06-20
People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12
People v. Marsden Crim. 14119 · 1970-02-26