People v. Hunt CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCN320823;SCN318127
- Trial judge
- David L. Berry
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- O'Rourke (author), Judith D. McConnell, McINTYRE
Analysis
The trial court sentenced the defendant to twelve years and eight months in prison, including a one-year prior prison term enhancement, following a guilty plea to burglary. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after finding no arguable issues on appeal during its independent review of the record.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Sentencing calculation regarding the one-year prior prison term enhancement“Whether the trial court erred by finding that the one-year prior prison enhancement would be added to the sentence full strength at the end of the sentence even if it had made the case it was attached to the subordinate term” | de novo | not reached | unsure The appellate court did not reach the merits of the sentencing calculation because it determined the issue was not arguable and found no error in the record during its independent review. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appellate counsel to file a brief identifying arguable issues or, if none exist, to request the court to independently review the record for error.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed appellate counsel to withdraw when no arguable issues exist, requiring a brief and court review.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for cases where counsel identifies no arguable issues. The court explicitly states it reviewed the entire record and found no error, which is the required standard of review in this context.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionFollowing a guilty plea to first degree burglary with admissions of a person-present allegation, a serious felony prior, and a strike prior, the trial court recalled the defendant's earlier robbery sentence, aggregated the two cases, and imposed twelve years eight months in prison within the nine-to-thirteen-year range stated on the plea form. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief identifying one possible issue concerning the one-year prison prior enhancement, the defendant 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
Imposition of the one-year prison prior enhancement (§ 667.5, subd. (b)) at full strength on the aggregate sentence rather than reducing it to one-third as part of a subordinate term“"Whether the trial court erred by finding that the one-year prior prison enhancement would be added to the sentence full strength at the end of the sentence even if it had made the case it was attached to the subordinate term” | unclear | correct | agree with court The appellate court did not expressly analyze the issue; it conducted independent Wende review and found no arguable issue. The result is right: under Penal Code section 1170.1, subdivision (a), enhancements based on prior convictions or prior prison terms are status enhancements that attach once to the aggregate term as the final step of sentencing and are not reduced to one-third, as the Supreme Court held in People v. Tassell (1984) 36 Cal.3d 77. The trial court's statement that the enhancement would be added full strength regardless of which case it was 'attached to' was therefore correct, and counsel properly characterized the point as not arguable. |
Aggregate sentence of twelve years eight months imposed after recalling the prior robbery sentence and aggregating both cases“It sentenced him to twelve years eight months in prison as follows: two years eight months on the underlying burglary; and consecutive terms of four years on his prior robbery conviction; five years on his serious felony prior under section 667, subdivision (a)(1); and one year for the prison prior.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The sentence falls within the nine-to-thirteen-year range stated on the plea form, and the components described in the opinion are consistent with section 1170.1 aggregation: the burglary as a subordinate term at one-third the four-year midterm doubled for the strike (2 years 8 months), a principal term on the recalled robbery, plus the five-year section 667, subdivision (a)(1) enhancement and the one-year prison prior added once to the aggregate. Nothing in the opinion suggests an unauthorized sentence, and the Wende review found none. |
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 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous may so advise the court and request leave to withdraw, accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, with the court then conducting its own examination.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion follows the required Wende/Anders procedure: it notes the possible issue identified by counsel, confirms the defendant was invited to file his own brief and did not, and states that the court independently reviewed the entire record and found no arguable issue. The one issue flagged by counsel is correctly treated as not arguable because prior-prison-term enhancements are added once to the aggregate term at full strength under section 1170.1 and People v. Tassell, so no fuller discussion was required.
Opinion
Filed 12/31/14 P. v. Hunt 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, D065058
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN320823; SCN318127) JUSTIN SCOTT HUNT, Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, David L.
Berry, Judge. Affirmed.
Denise M. Rudasill, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala Harris, Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Justin Scott Hunt pleaded guilty to burglary of an inhabited dwelling home (Pen.
Code,1 §§ 459, 460) and admitted that in the commission of the crime, a person other than an accomplice was present in the residence. (§ 667.5, subd. (c)(21).) He also 1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code. admitted an allegation that he had suffered a serious felony prior and a strike prior within the meaning of the "Three Strikes" law. (§§ 211; 667, subds. (b)-(i); 1170.12.) In exchange, the People dismissed another burglary charge and allegations regarding other prison priors. His plea form stated he agreed to a sentencing range of between nine and thirteen years.
The court recalled Hunt's previous robbery sentence in order to aggregate both sentences. It sentenced him to twelve years eight months in prison as follows: two years eight months on the underlying burglary; and consecutive terms of four years on his prior robbery conviction; five years on his serious felony prior under section 667, subdivision (a)(1); and one year for the prison prior.
DISCUSSION
There are no relevant facts to discuss in this appeal. Appellate counsel presents no argument for reversal of the trial court's order, but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), raising this possible but not arguable appellate issue: "Whether the trial court erred by finding that the one-year prior prison enhancement would be added to the sentence full strength at the end of the sentence even if it had made the case it was attached to the subordinate term instead of finding that it should be reduced to one-third the mid term if it had made the case it was attached to the subordinate term."
We offered Hunt the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal and he not has done so.
2 We have reviewed the entire record in accordance with Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, and have not found any arguable appellate issue.
Competent counsel has represented Hunt on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
O'ROURKE, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
McINTYRE, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12