People v. Steigman CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD250339
- Trial judge
- Timothy R. Walsh
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Judith D. McConnell, O'Rourke
Analysis
The trial court accepted a plea agreement in which the defendant pleaded guilty to three counts of assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury and admitted personal infliction of great bodily injury, resulting in a stipulated seven-year prison sentence. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
Affirmance of the judgment following a Wende/Anders review“We have reviewed the entire record in accordance with Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738. We have been unable to find any reasonably arguable issue for reversal on appeal.” | 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 found no reasonably arguable issues for reversal, thereby affirming the judgment. The court's reasoning is consistent with the procedural requirements for appointed appellate counsel in criminal cases. |
Sentence in accordance with plea agreement“Stiegman was sentenced to the low term of two years on count 3 plus a consecutive five-year term for the great bodily injury enhancement for a total of seven years.” | de novo | not reached | agree with court The opinion notes that the defendant was sentenced to a total of seven years, which matches the stipulated sentence promised in the plea agreement. The appellate court, in its Wende review, found no error regarding this issue. |
Award of custody and conduct credits“The court awarded 241 days of custody and conduct credits consistent with the probation officer's recommendations.” | de novo | not reached | agree with court The opinion states that the trial court awarded credits consistent with the probation officer's recommendations. The appellate court, in its Wende review, found no error regarding this issue. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to file a brief identifying any reasonably arguable issues and to request the court to review the record for error if none are found.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to withdraw from a criminal appeal by filing a brief identifying possible but not reasonably arguable issues and requesting the court to review the record.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the Wende/Anders framework for reviewing a criminal appeal where appointed counsel finds no reasonably arguable issues. The court explicitly states it reviewed the entire record and found no error, which satisfies the procedural requirements.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court accepted Stiegman's guilty plea to three counts of assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury with great bodily injury enhancements and imposed the stipulated seven-year sentence with 241 days of credits. On appeal, counsel filed a Wende brief, the defendant filed nothing, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issue, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Imposition of the stipulated seven-year sentence (low term of two years on count 3 plus consecutive five-year section 12022.7, subdivision (b) enhancement, concurrent terms on remaining counts) in accordance with the plea agreement“Stiegman was sentenced to the low term of two years on count 3 plus a consecutive five-year term for the great bodily injury enhancement for a total of seven years.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The opinion recites that the plea agreement promised a stipulated seven-year term and the sentence imposed totals exactly seven years, so on the face of the record the sentence conforms to the bargain; the court conducted an independent Wende review and found no arguable issue. Nothing in the opinion suggests a deviation from the agreement. |
Award of 241 days of custody and conduct credits consistent with the probation officer's recommendation“The court awarded 241 days of custody and conduct credits consistent with the probation officer's recommendations.” | unclear | correct | unsure Appellate counsel flagged credits as a possible Anders issue and the court reviewed the entire record and found nothing arguable. The opinion does not give the arrest or sentencing dates or the credit computation, so the correctness of the figure cannot be independently verified from the opinion, but there is no indication of error. |
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 — Counsel who finds no meritorious issues may file a brief identifying anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal to aid the court's review.
The appellate opinion: sound — The court followed the required Wende/Anders procedure: it noted counsel's brief, offered the defendant an opportunity to file a supplemental brief, identified the possible issues counsel raised, and stated it reviewed the entire record. The opinion is brief and does not discuss the credit computation or the terms of the plea in detail, but nothing on its face suggests the result is wrong.
Opinion
Filed 11/24/14 P. v. Steigman 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, D065955
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD250339)
NELSON BRADFORD STIEGMAN,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Timothy R. Walsh, Judge. Affirmed.
Patrick J. Hennessey, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
Nelson Bradford Stiegman entered into a plea agreement. Pursuant to the plea agreement Stiegman pleaded guilty to three counts of assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code,1 § 245, subd. (a)(4)). Stiegman also admitted personally 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. inflicting great bodily injury during the commission of the offenses (§ 12022.7, subd. (b)). In return for his admissions Stiegman was promised a stipulated sentence of seven years in prison.
Stiegman was sentenced to the low term of two years on count 3 plus a consecutive five-year term for the great bodily injury enhancement for a total of seven years. Concurrent sentences were imposed on the remaining counts. The court awarded 241 days of custody and conduct credits consistent with the probation officer's recommendations.
Stiegman filed a timely notice of appeal and obtained a certificate of probable cause from the trial court. (§ 1237.5.)
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), indicating he has not been able to find any reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel requests this court to review the record for error as required by Wende. We offered Stiegman the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal but he has not responded.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
In his guilty plea Stiegman admitted assaulting three separate people with force likely to cause great bodily injury. He also admitted that he personally inflicted great bodily injury on each of the victims.
DISCUSSION
As we have previously noted, appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 2 (Anders), counsel has identified possible but not reasonably arguable issues for reversal to aid the court in its review of the record:
1. Whether Stiegman was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement?
2. Whether Stiegman was given all custody and conduct credits to which he was entitled?
We have reviewed the entire record in accordance with Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738. We have been unable to find any reasonably arguable issue for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Stiegman on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
O'ROURKE, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12