People v. Watson CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD247656, SCD246913, SCD240679
- Trial judge
- Eugenia Eyherabide
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Alex C. McDonald, Joan K. Irion
Analysis
The trial court convicted Watson of assault with a deadly weapon causing great bodily injury, accepted guilty pleas for domestic violence and transporting marijuana, and sentenced him to a seven-year prison term. 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 review“Our review of the record has not identified any reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Watson on this appeal.” | de novo | not reached | agree with court The court applied the standard Wende review, examining the entire record to determine if any reasonably arguable issues existed. Finding none, the court affirmed the judgment. This is the standard procedure for appointed appellate counsel who cannot identify issues. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to review the record and file a brief identifying any reasonably arguable issues, or stating that none exist, while the court must independently review the record.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appellate counsel to identify any possible, but not arguable, issues for the court's review when filing a no-merit brief.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly identifies the Wende/Anders framework and states that the court performed an independent review of the record. However, it is a boilerplate disposition that provides no substantive analysis of the underlying convictions or sentencing, which is typical for unpublished Wende cases but offers no insight into the legal correctness of the trial court's specific rulings.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court entered judgment on a jury conviction for assault with a deadly weapon with a great bodily injury enhancement and an on-bail enhancement (case No. SCD247656), together with guilty pleas to spousal injury (Pen. Code, § 273.5) and marijuana transportation (Health & Saf. Code, § 11360) in two other cases, and imposed an aggregate seven-year prison term. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief identifying no arguable issues, the defendant 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 seven-year sentence in the three consolidated cases (jury verdict on §§ 245(a)/12022.7(a) with § 12022.1(b) on-bail enhancement; guilty pleas to § 273.5(a) and Health & Saf. Code § 11360(a)), reviewed under Wende independent-review procedure“We have reviewed the record pursuant to the mandate of Wende. Our review of the record has not identified any reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal.” | de novo | correct | agree with court This is a no-issue Wende appeal. The court followed the required procedure: counsel filed a Wende brief, the defendant was given the opportunity to file his own brief and did not, and the court independently reviewed the entire record and set out the facts and procedural history. The opinion notes counsel did not comply with Anders by flagging possible issues, but correctly proceeded with its own review anyway, which is what Wende requires. Nothing in the opinion discloses a legal error in the underlying judgment, but the opinion contains no analysis of any specific ruling, so there is nothing beyond the court's own representation to evaluate. |
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 should file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal; the court then conducts its own review.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion follows the Wende procedure correctly: it recites the procedural history and facts, confirms the defendant was invited to file a supplemental brief, conducts an independent review, and affirms, while appropriately noting counsel's failure to identify possible issues under Anders without penalizing the defendant for it. The opinion is purely procedural and contains no substantive analysis, and it has minor internal inconsistencies in the case numbers (SCD249913 vs. SCD246913; SCD240679 vs. SCS240679), but these do not affect the result.
Opinion
Filed 12/30/14 P. v. Watson 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, D066032
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. Nos. SCD247656, SCD246913, SCD240679) DAVID ARTHER WATSON, Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Eugenia Eyherabide, Judge. Affirmed.
Steven J. Carroll, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
This appeal follows a jury conviction in San Diego Superior Court case No.
SCD247656 and guilty pleas in case Nos. SCD249913 and SCS240679. In case No.
SCS240679 David Arthur Watson entered a guilty plea to one count of transporting marijuana into the United States (Health & Saf. Code, § 11360, subd. (a)). In case No. SCD246913 Watson entered a guilty plea to use of force against a spouse causing injury (Pen. Code,1 § 273.5, subd. (a)).
In case No. SCD247656 a jury convicted Watson and two others of assault with a deadly weapon causing great bodily injury (§§ 245, subd. (a); 12022.7, subd. (a)). The court found an on-bail enhancement to be true (§ 12022.1, subd. (b)).
Watson was sentenced on all of the cases to a seven-year prison term. Watson filed a timely notice of appeal.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), indicating he has not been able to identify any reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. Although counsel has cited Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S.
738 (Anders), which requires appellate counsel to identify any possible, but not arguable issues for the court's review, he has not identified any possible appellate issues.
Appellate counsel has not complied with the mandate of Anders, supra, 386 U.S.
738 and has not assisted this court in its search of the record for possible error. However, notwithstanding noncompliance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record.
We offered Watson the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal but he has not responded.
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. 2 STATEMENT OF FACTS A. Case No. SCD247656 On April 10, 2013, Watson and others were playing cards on the sidewalk under the Interstate 5 overpass at Pacific Highway and Rosecrans. The group of five or six people and their shopping carts were blocking the sidewalk. The victim approached the group riding his bicycle. He asked the group to move and they refused. That led to a confrontation.
During the ensuing fight, Watson stabbed the victim multiple times. The victim was hospitalized for seven days and lost 500 milliliters of blood from his wounds.
B. Case No. SCD246913 Watson pled guilty on March 29, 2013, to one count of domestic violence. He admitted choking his wife, who he had found with a boyfriend. Watson choked his wife until she lost consciousness.
C. Case No. SCS240679 On August 4, 2010, Watson pled guilty to transporting marijuana for sale. Watson was apprehended at the United States border at San Ysidro with 2.42 pounds of marijuana in his possession.
DISCUSSION
As we have indicated above, appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, indicating he has not been able to identify any reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal. We have reviewed the record pursuant to the mandate of 3 Wende. Our review of the record has not identified any reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Watson on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
McDONALD, J.
IRION, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12