People v. Farias CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D065162 · 2014-10-31 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCS263956
Trial judge: Tamila E. Ipema
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: McINTYRE (author), Richard D. Huffman, Sr., Gilbert Nares

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T06:30Z · confidence low

The trial court convicted Raul Farias of petty theft, found true a prior serious or violent felony enhancement, and sentenced him to 32 months in prison. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende and finding no arguable issues.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Admission of 911 call recording “whether the trial court erred by (1) admitting a recording of the 911 call”	unclear	not reached	agree with court agree with court
Admission of prior convictions under Evidence Code section 1101 “(2) admitting Farias's prior convictions under Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (b)”	unclear	not reached	agree with court agree with court
Admission of prior convictions for impeachment “(3) admitting the prior convictions for impeachment purposes”	unclear	not reached	agree with court agree with court
Denial of request to strike prior strike or reduce conviction “(4) denying Farias's request to strike his prior strike or reduce his conviction to a misdemeanor”	unclear	not reached	agree with court agree with court

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 issues are raised.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to file a brief identifying any possible, though non-meritorious, issues for the court's independent review.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for cases where appointed counsel identifies no arguable issues. However, it provides no substantive legal analysis or reasoning for why the specific issues listed by counsel (evidence admissibility and sentencing discretion) were not arguable, relying solely on the conclusion that no error was found.

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 Raul Farias of petty theft with a true finding on three prior theft-related convictions including one felony strike, and the trial court imposed the 16-month low term doubled to 32 months for the strike after denying his request to strike the prior or reduce the offense to a misdemeanor. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief raising no issues, Farias 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
Admission of the recording of the 911 call “whether the trial court erred by (1) admitting a recording of the 911 call,”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion lists this only as a possible Anders issue and states no standard or analysis; the court's conclusion that it is not arguable is consistent with the Wende procedure, but the opinion gives no facts about the hearsay or foundation basis for admission, so the merits cannot be independently assessed.
Admission of Farias's prior convictions under Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (b) “(2) admitting Farias's prior convictions under Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision”	unclear	correct	unsure Farias testified he did not remember events before being detained due to intoxication, which plausibly placed intent and absence of mistake at issue and would support section 1101(b) admission; however, the opinion gives no detail about the purpose for which the priors were admitted or any limiting instruction, so agreement cannot be confirmed.
Admission of the prior convictions for impeachment “(b), (3) admitting the prior convictions for impeachment purposes, and (4) denying”	unclear	correct	unsure Theft-related priors are crimes of moral turpitude generally admissible to impeach a testifying defendant subject to Evidence Code section 352, and Farias testified; the opinion does not describe the section 352 weighing, so the result appears defensible but is not shown.
Denial of request to strike the prior strike or reduce the conviction to a misdemeanor “Farias's request to strike his prior strike or reduce his conviction to a misdemeanor.”	unclear	correct	unsure A Romero ruling and a decision not to reduce a wobbler are reviewed for abuse of discretion, and the trial court chose the low term before doubling, suggesting it considered mitigation; the opinion does not recite the reasons given or the defendant's record beyond three theft priors, so the ruling cannot be independently evaluated.
Overall Wende/Anders independent review of the record “has disclosed no reasonably arguable issues on appeal.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The court followed the required Wende procedure: counsel filed a no-issue brief identifying possible issues, Farias was given the opportunity to file his own brief and did not, and the court conducted an independent review and stated its conclusion; the sentence described (16-month low term doubled by the strike) is consistent with a petty theft with prior conviction.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel files a brief raising no 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 no meritorious issues may file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, after which the court decides whether the appeal is frivolous.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly follows the Wende/Anders procedure, identifies the possible issues flagged by counsel, notes that Farias declined to file his own brief, and states that independent review disclosed no arguable issue, which is all that is required in this posture. It provides no substantive analysis of the four listed issues, so the result is defensible but not demonstrated on the face of the opinion.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 10/31/14 P. v. Farias 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, D065162

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCS263956)

RAUL FARIAS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Tamila E. Ipema, Judge. Affirmed.

Andrea S. Bitar, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

A jury convicted Raul Farias of petty theft and found true an allegation that he had previously been convicted of three theft-related offenses, one of which was a felony strike. The trial court sentenced Farias to the low term of 16 months in prison which was doubled to 32 months as a result of the felony strike. Farias's court-appointed counsel has filed a brief raising no issues, but seeking our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders). We find no arguable issue and affirm.

FACTS

On a morning in February 2013, Bulmaro Estrada heard a noise in the backyard of his apartment and looked out the window. He saw Farias jump over a chain link fence into his backyard. Estrada went into the backyard and saw Farias. Estrada struggled with Farias and prevented him from escaping by knocking him down.

Estrada's wife called 911 and Estrada got on the phone to talk to the 911 operator.

The police arrived shortly thereafter and detained Farias. Estrada noticed that three platform dollies he used for moving heavy things were in a vacant lot outside his fence.

Farias testified in his own defense. He stated he remembered being hit by Estrada in Estrada's patio and being detained by the police, but did not recall anything before that.

Farias testified he drank approximately 18 beers and took one gram of methamphetamine prior to being detained.

DISCUSSION

Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. He presented no argument for reversal, but asked this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. Under Anders, he listed as possible but not arguable issues, whether the trial court erred by (1) admitting a recording of the 911 call, (2) admitting Farias's prior convictions under Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision 2 (b), (3) admitting the prior convictions for impeachment purposes, and (4) denying Farias's request to strike his prior strike or reduce his conviction to a misdemeanor. We granted Farias permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded.

Our review of the record pursuant to Wende, including the possible issues listed by counsel pursuant to Anders, has disclosed no reasonably arguable issues on appeal.

Competent counsel has represented Farias on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

MCINTYRE, J.

WE CONCUR:

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

NARES, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12