People v. Wilson CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD252160
- Trial judge
- Timothy R. Walsh
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Cynthia Aaron (author), O'Rourke, Patricia D. Benke
Analysis
The trial court accepted Wilson's negotiated guilty plea to felony vandalism and misdemeanor resisting an officer and sentenced him to a stipulated 16-month lower term. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende and finding no reasonably arguable appellate issues.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Affirmance of the judgment following a Wende/Anders review“A review of the record pursuant to Wende and Anders, including the possible issues listed pursuant to Anders, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues.” | de novo | not reached | agree with court The appellate court conducted an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende and Anders v. California. It concluded that no reasonably arguable issues existed, including the potential issues raised by appointed counsel regarding the validity of the appeal waiver, the plea, and ineffective assistance of counsel. Consequently, the court affirmed the judgment without addressing the merits of the specific trial court rulings on the plea or sentence, as no arguable error was identified in the record. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Appointed appellate counsel must conduct an independent review of the record to identify any reasonably arguable issues when no issues are presented in the brief.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel may file a brief identifying potential but not arguable issues and request the court to review the record independently.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the Wende/Anders framework for appointed counsel appeals. It accurately states that the court's independent review disclosed no reasonably arguable issues, which is the proper basis for affirmance in such cases.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court accepted Wilson's negotiated guilty plea to felony vandalism and misdemeanor resisting an officer and imposed the stipulated 16-month lower term in jail. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief raising no arguable issues, Wilson filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no reasonably arguable issues, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Judgment of conviction and stipulated 16-month jail sentence following negotiated guilty plea, reviewed under Wende/Anders independent record review for arguable issues (including validity of appeal waiver, constitutional validity of plea, and ineffective assistance of trial counsel)“A review of the record pursuant to Wende and Anders, including the possible issues listed pursuant to Anders, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The opinion follows the standard Wende procedure: counsel filed a no-issue brief identifying possible Anders issues, the defendant was given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief and did not, and the court conducted its own review of the record and found nothing arguable. The opinion does not recite any facts suggesting error in the plea or sentence, and the sentence was stipulated. Nothing in the opinion gives a basis to disagree, though the summary nature of the opinion limits what can be verified. |
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 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.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly applies the Wende/Anders procedure, confirms the defendant was offered the chance to file his own brief, and states that independent review disclosed no arguable issues. It is a brief, routine no-issue affirmance with no substantive analysis to evaluate beyond the procedural steps, which were properly followed.
Opinion
Filed 9/26/14 P. v. Wilson 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, D065831
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD252160)
TONY WILSON,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Timothy R. Walsh, Judge. Affirmed.
Leslie A. Rose, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Tony Wilson entered a negotiated guilty plea to felony vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subds. (a), (b)(1)) and misdemeanor resisting an officer (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)). The court sentenced him to a stipulated 16-month lower term in jail on the vandalism offense, with credit for time served for resisting an officer. Wilson appeals.
We affirm.
BACKGROUND
On November 8, 2013, Wilson entered a restaurant where he threw chairs and tables and knocked over a bin, causing approximately $1,000 in damage. Wilson then went outside and fought with officers employed in the security wing of the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System.
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 (Wende). Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) counsel mentions as possible, but not arguable, issues (1) whether Wilson's waiver of his right to appeal was valid; (2) whether his plea was constitutionally valid; and (3) whether his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance.
We granted Wilson permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded. A review of the record pursuant to Wende and Anders, including the possible issues listed pursuant to Anders, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues.
Wilson has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.
2 DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
AARON, J.
WE CONCUR:
BENKE, Acting P. J.
O'ROURKE, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12