People v. Garcia CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D063662 · 2014-09-30 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of Imperial County · No. JCF29787
Trial judge: William D. Lehman
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: delinquency
Panel: Cynthia Aaron (author), Judith D. McConnell, O'Rourke

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T06:32Z · confidence low

The trial court denied Garcia's motion to withdraw his no contest plea and sentenced him to four years in prison for possession of a controlled substance in a prison facility. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, finding no reasonably arguable issues of error.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of motion to withdraw no contest plea “After holding an in camera hearing pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118, the trial court denied Garcia's motion.”	unclear	not reached	agree with court The appellate court conducted a Wende review and concluded that no reasonably arguable issues existed, thereby affirming the judgment without explicitly analyzing the standard of review for the plea withdrawal motion.
Sentencing to four years (low term doubled) “Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, the court sentenced Garcia to the low term of two years, which was doubled to four years based on his prior conviction.”	unclear	not reached	agree with court The court affirmed the judgment after a Wende review, finding no error in the sentencing calculation or application of the plea agreement terms.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to review the record for error when no issues are presented for appeal.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to withdraw from representation in an appeal by filing a brief identifying arguable issues and requesting independent review by the court.
relied: People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 — Governs the procedure for in camera hearings to determine if a conflict of interest exists between the defendant and their attorney.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court applied the Wende/Anders framework to independently review the record for error. It concluded that no reasonably arguable issues were disclosed, leading to an affirmance.

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

The Imperial County Superior Court accepted Dino Garcia's negotiated no contest plea to possession of a controlled substance in prison (Pen. Code, § 4573.6) with an admitted prior, sentenced him to the low term of two years doubled to four, and later denied his motion to withdraw the plea after a Marsden hearing. On a Wende/Anders appeal, with a pro se supplemental brief raising a Penal Code section 1170.1, subdivision (a) aggregation issue and supplemental briefing ordered from both sides, the Court of Appeal found no reasonably arguable issues and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of Garcia's post-sentence motion to withdraw his no contest plea based on alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel, after an in camera Marsden hearing “After holding an in camera hearing pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118, the trial court denied Garcia's motion.”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion conducts independent Wende review and states no arguable issue exists, but it does not describe the evidence at the hearing, the trial court's reasons, or whether a certificate of probable cause under Penal Code section 1237.5 was obtained for a challenge to plea validity. Without those facts the ruling cannot be independently evaluated from the opinion.
Sentence of the low term of two years doubled to four years under the plea agreement, including the issues counsel and Garcia flagged: realignment eligibility, custody credits, fines, and failure to aggregate under Penal Code section 1170.1, subdivision (a) “Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, the court sentenced Garcia to the low term of two years, which was doubled to four years based on his prior conviction.”	unclear	correct	unsure The sentence matched the negotiated disposition and a prior serious felony (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)) ordinarily disqualifies a defendant from county jail realignment sentencing, so the result is plausible; in-prison offenses are also governed by the separate consecutive-sentencing rule of Penal Code section 1170.1, subdivision (c) rather than ordinary aggregation. But the court requested supplemental briefing on section 1170.1 and then gave no explanation of why the contention fails, so the opinion itself does not permit verification.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel files a brief raising no arguable issues, the Court of Appeal must independently review the entire record for arguable error.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal frivolous must so advise the court and refer to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, after which the court conducts its own examination.
relied: People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 — When a defendant complains of appointed counsel's performance and seeks substitution, the trial court must hold a hearing allowing the defendant to state the specific reasons for the request.
missed: People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 — In a Wende appeal where the defendant files a supplemental brief, the Court of Appeal's opinion should reflect that it considered the defendant's contentions and should set forth the reasons for rejecting them; here the court noted Garcia's section 1170.1 contention and ordered briefing on it but stated no reasons for its rejection.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court followed the Wende/Anders procedure, permitted a pro se supplemental brief, and even ordered supplemental briefing on the section 1170.1 question, and the affirmance of a negotiated low-term sentence is defensible. However, the opinion gives no reasons for rejecting Garcia's section 1170.1 contention as People v. Kelly contemplates, and it does not address whether a certificate of probable cause was obtained for the challenge to the plea.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 9/30/14 P. v. Garcia 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, D063662

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. JCF29787)

DINO GARCIA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Imperial County, William D.

Lehman, Judge. Affirmed.

Patrick Morgan Ford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, and Minh U. Le, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. I.

INTRODUCTION

Defendant Dino Garcia pled no contest to one count of possession of a controlled substance in a prison facility and admitted to having suffered a prior felony conviction.

The trial court sentenced Garcia to the low term of two years, doubled to four, pursuant to the plea agreement.

Appointed appellate counsel filed a brief presenting no argument for reversal, but requesting that this court review the record for error in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). After having independently reviewed the entire record for error as required by Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) and Wende, and after having sought additional briefing from the parties, we affirm.

II.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In September 2011, Garcia was serving a term for a felony conviction at Centinela State Prison. One afternoon, Correctional Sergeant Miguel Trujillo was summoned to the unit where Garcia was housed. A correctional officer informed Sergeant Trujillo that he had observed Garcia pass an envelope to another inmate. The correctional officer took possession of the envelope and found that it contained a hypodermic syringe with a brown liquid substance inside of it.

2 Correctional officers conducted a body search of Garcia and saw a string protruding from his anus. Upon questioning, Garcia eventually removed a small bindle.

Garcia said that the bindle contained about "$50 worth" of heroin. A test of the substance rendered a presumptive positive result for heroin.

A grand jury indicted Garcia for violating Penal Code section 4573.6, possession of a controlled substance in a prison facility. The indictment also alleged that Garcia had suffered a prior conviction for assault with a deadly weapon in 2009.

Garcia entered a plea of not guilty and denied the allegations. Later, Garcia withdrew his plea of not guilty, and entered a negotiated plea of no contest to the charge of possession of a controlled substance in a prison facility. He also admitted having suffered the alleged prior conviction.

Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, the court sentenced Garcia to the low term of two years, which was doubled to four years based on his prior conviction.

Two months later, Garcia filed a handwritten request to withdraw his no contest plea. Garcia alleged that his trial counsel had rendered ineffective assistance in advising him to accept the negotiated plea deal. The trial court conducted a hearing on Garcia's motion to withdraw his plea. After holding an in camera hearing pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118, the trial court denied Garcia's motion.

Garcia filed a timely notice of appeal.

3 III.

DISCUSSION

Garcia's appointed counsel 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 Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738. Counsel identifies the following as possible, but not arguable, issues for our review:

(1) "Did the court err in denying petitioner's motion to withdraw his plea, or appoint counsel to file a habeas corpus petition?"

(2) "Did trial counsel render ineffective assistance by failing to adequately investigate the charge before advising appellant to accept a negotiated plea?"

(3) "Did the court properly sentence appellant?"

With respect to the third question, counsel identified the following subquestions:

(a) "Was appellant disqualified from [the Criminal Justice Realignment Act] scheme based on his prior conviction for assault with a deadly weapon as defined in Penal Code section 245 subd. (a)(1)?"

(b) "Did the court err by not granting appellant any credits for time served, in that the present charge was designated to run consecutively?"

We granted Garcia permission to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf.

Garcia filed a supplemental brief in which he raised the question whether the trial court erred in failing to sentence him pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.1, subdivision (a), 4 by failing to aggregate his sentence in the current case with the sentence in his prior case.

We requested that counsel for Garcia and the Attorney General file supplemental briefing addressing issues related to the possible application of Penal Code section 1170.1, subdivision (a).

A review of these supplemental briefs and the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has ultimately disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Garcia has been competently represented by counsel in this appeal.

IV.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

AARON, J.

WE CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

O'ROURKE, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12
People v. Marsden Crim. 14119 · 1970-02-26