People v. Rhine CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD238892
- Outcome
- affirmed — The judgment is affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Cynthia Aaron (author), Judith D. McConnell, O'Rourke
Analysis
The trial court accepted Rhine's guilty plea to mayhem, admitted the great bodily injury enhancement and prior strike, and sentenced him to seven years in prison. On appeal, the court affirmed the judgment after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, finding no reasonably arguable issues.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of Marsden motion for new counsel“Did the trial court abuse its discretion and err in denying [Rhine's] Marsden motion?” | abuse of discretion | not reached | agree with court agree with court |
Validity of guilty plea“Is [Rhine's] plea constitutionally valid?” | unclear | not reached | agree with court agree with court |
Sentence in accordance with plea agreement“Was [Rhine] sentenced in accordance with his guilty plea agreement?” | unclear | not reached | agree with court agree with court |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Appellate counsel must file a brief identifying potential issues and the court must independently review the record for error when counsel finds no arguable issues.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed appellate counsel must file a brief identifying potential issues and the court must independently review the record for error when counsel finds no arguable issues.
- relied: People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 — Establishes the procedure for a defendant to request new counsel and the standard for the trial court's discretion in denying such a request.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the Wende/Anders framework for independent review. It accurately summarizes the procedural history and the issues identified by counsel, concluding that no reasonably arguable issues exist based on the record.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court denied Rhine's Marsden motion, accepted his guilty plea to mayhem with a great bodily injury enhancement and a prior strike admission, and imposed the stipulated seven-year sentence. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief, Rhine filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issue, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of Rhine's Marsden motion to relieve appointed counsel and appoint new counsel“The court held a Marsden 4 hearing and denied Rhine's request.” | abuse of discretion | correct | agree with court The opinion identifies the Marsden denial as a possible issue flagged by counsel, applies the customary abuse-of-discretion framing, and reports that independent review of the record disclosed no arguable error. The opinion gives no detail of the Marsden hearing, so the conclusion cannot be independently verified, but nothing in the opinion suggests the trial court erred, and Rhine thereafter entered a negotiated plea. |
Acceptance of Rhine's guilty plea and admissions as constitutionally valid“The trial court held a change of plea hearing and accepted Rhine's guilty plea and admissions.” | unclear | correct | agree with court Counsel identified plea validity as a possible issue; the court's Wende review found no arguable issue. The opinion notes Rhine stipulated to the preliminary hearing transcript as the factual basis, which supports the plea. The opinion does not mention whether a certificate of probable cause under Penal Code section 1237.5 was obtained, which would ordinarily be required to challenge plea validity, but under Wende the court reviewed the whole record regardless. |
Imposition of the stipulated seven-year sentence (lower term of two years doubled for the strike plus three years for the GBI enhancement)“The court imposed a four-year term on count 2 (mayhem) (§ 203)—the lower term of two years doubled due to the strike prior, and an additional consecutive term of three years for the great bodily injury enhancement (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)).” | unclear | correct | agree with court The sentence matches the plea agreement: the lower term for mayhem is two years, doubled under the Three Strikes law to four, plus the mandatory three-year consecutive term under section 12022.7, subdivision (a), totaling seven years. The arithmetic and statutory components stated in the opinion are consistent with the stipulated term. |
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 error before affirming.
- 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; the court then reviews the record.
- 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 complaint before ruling.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion follows the standard Wende/Anders procedure: it recites counsel's possible issues, confirms Rhine was invited to file a supplemental brief and did not, and reports that independent review disclosed no arguable issue. Its summary of the plea and sentence is internally consistent with the stipulated seven-year term, and no argument was raised that went unanswered, though the opinion does not mention whether a certificate of probable cause was obtained.
Opinion
Filed 10/23/14 P. v. Rhine 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, D065449
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD238892)
JOHN S. RHINE, Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Timothy R. Walsh. Affirmed.
Appellate Defenders, Inc. and Loleena Ansari, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. I.
INTRODUCTION
John S. Rhine pled guilty to one count of mayhem (Pen. Code, § 203)1 and admitted having personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim (§ 12022.7, subd.
(a)). Rhine also admitted having suffered a prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)- (1), 668, 1170.12). The trial court sentenced Rhine to a stipulated sentence of seven years in prison.
Appointed appellate counsel filed a brief presenting no argument for reversal, but inviting this court to 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, we affirm.
II.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. Factual background2 On January 24, 2012, the victim, Phillip Smedick, was standing in a parking lot on Sixth Avenue in San Diego. A woman asked Smedick to watch over her car while the 1 Unless otherwise specified, all subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2 At the change of plea hearing, Rhine agreed that the contents of the preliminary hearing transcript would serve as the factual basis for his guilty plea. Thus, our factual background is drawn from the preliminary hearing transcript. 2 woman took her daughters across the street. While Smedick watched over the car, Rhine approached him. Rhine cut Smedick on the face with a knife.3 Smedick went to the hospital, where he received 30 or 40 stitches. Smedick has a scar approximately five inches in length on his face from the cut.
B. Procedural background The People charged Rhine with one count of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)) (count 1) and one count of mayhem (§ 203) (count 2). As to both counts, the People alleged that Rhine personally used a deadly weapon within the meaning of section 1192.7, subdivision (c)(23), and personally inflicted great bodily injury within the meaning of sections 12022.7, subdivision (a) and 1192.7, subdivision (c)(8). With respect to count two, the People alleged Rhine personally used a deadly weapon within the meaning of section 12022, subdivision (b)(1). The People further alleged that Rhine had suffered one prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, 668).
On January 6, 2014, Rhine requested that the trial court relieve appointed counsel and appoint new counsel. The court held a Marsden 4 hearing and denied Rhine's request.
That same day, Rhine agreed to plead guilty to count 2, mayhem (§ 203), admit the great bodily injury enhancement (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)) as to count 2, and admit the prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, 668)). In exchange, the prosecution agreed to 3 Smedick stated that he did not remember very many details of the attack, explaining, "I lost a lot of my memory on that, the actual event."
4 People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Ca1.3d 118. 3 dismiss the balance of the charges. The parties also agreed that Rhine would serve a seven-year prison sentence. The trial court held a change of plea hearing and accepted Rhine's guilty plea and admissions.
The trial court sentenced Rhine to seven years in prison in accordance with his plea agreement. The court imposed a four-year term on count 2 (mayhem) (§ 203)—the lower term of two years doubled due to the strike prior, and an additional consecutive term of three years for the great bodily injury enhancement (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)).
III.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings in the trial court. Counsel presented no argument for reversal but invited this court to review the record for error in accordance with Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.
Pursuant to Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, counsel identified the following as possible, but not arguable, issues:
"Did the trial court abuse its discretion and err in denying [Rhine's] Marsden motion?"
"Is [Rhine's] plea constitutionally valid?"
"Was [Rhine] sentenced in accordance with his guilty plea agreement?"
After this court received counsel's brief, we gave Rhine an opportunity to file a supplemental brief. Rhine has not filed a brief.
A review of the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the issues suggested by counsel, has disclosed no 4 reasonably arguable appellate issue. Rhine has been adequately represented by counsel on 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