People v. Lopez CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D065709 · 2015-01-05 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCE335103
Trial judge: Lantz Lewis
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Judith L. Haller, Cynthia Aaron

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T06:26Z · confidence low

The trial court convicted Eileen Lopez of robbery and making a criminal threat and sentenced her to a two-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
Conviction for making a criminal threat (Pen. Code § 422) “Whether there was sufficient evidence of sustained fear by the victim to support the conviction for making a criminal threat?”	unclear	not reached	unsure The court did not explicitly analyze the sufficiency of the evidence for the criminal threat count, but rather stated it had reviewed the entire record and found no reasonably arguable issues for reversal. The opinion does not provide specific reasoning for why the evidence was sufficient, only that the issue was not reasonably arguable.
Failure to instruct on lesser included offense of attempted criminal threats “Was the trial court required to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of attempted criminal threats?”	unclear	not reached	unsure The court listed this as a possible issue but did not provide specific analysis or reasoning for why the instruction was not required, only concluding that no reasonably arguable issues were found upon review of the record.
Admission of 911 tape contents “Did the trial court err in admitting the contents of the 911 tape?”	unclear	not reached	unsure The court identified this as a potential issue but did not analyze the hearsay or authentication rules applicable to the 911 tape, relying instead on the general Wende review conclusion that no error was found.
Failure to give unanimity instruction on robbery count “Was the trial court required to give a unanimity instruction regarding the robbery count?”	unclear	not reached	unsure The court noted this as a possible issue but did not discuss the specific facts regarding whether the robbery involved multiple victims or acts that would necessitate a unanimity instruction, simply finding no reasonably arguable issue.
Failure to instruct on simple assault as lesser included offense of robbery “Was the trial court required to instruct the jury on the offense of simple assault as a lesser included offense of robbery?”	unclear	not reached	unsure The court listed this as a potential issue but did not analyze the relationship between the elements of robbery and simple assault in the context of the evidence presented, relying on the overall Wende review.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to conduct an independent review of the record to identify any reasonably arguable issues for reversal when counsel finds none.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to file a brief identifying potential issues while stating they are not reasonably arguable, allowing the court to conduct its own review.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound in following the Wende/Anders protocol by conducting an independent review of the record. However, it is substantively thin as it provides no specific legal analysis for the five issues raised by counsel, merely stating that no reasonably arguable issues were 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 San Diego County jury convicted Eileen Lopez of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) and making a criminal threat (§ 422) arising from a CVS shoplifting incident in which she chest-bumped and threatened a store security employee, and the trial court sentenced her to two years in prison plus fines and fees. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief listing five possible issues, Lopez filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no reasonably arguable issue, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Judgment of conviction for robbery and criminal threat and two-year prison sentence, reviewed under Wende/Anders independent review of the entire record (counsel flagged sufficiency of sustained fear, failure to instruct on attempted criminal threat and simple assault as lesser included offenses, admission of the 911 tape, and absence of a unanimity instruction on the robbery count) “We have reviewed the entire record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738 and have not discovered any reasonably arguable issue for reversal on appeal.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The court followed the Wende procedure: counsel identified Anders issues, the defendant was invited to file her own brief and did not, and the court reviewed the whole record. The facts recited support the result on the flagged issues—Cook was frightened, retreated, called 911 after calming down, and testified to ongoing difficulty working at the store, which is evidence of sustained fear under § 422; the threats and chest-bumping while the trio retained the merchandise outside the store support robbery by force or fear during asportation. The opinion does not analyze the issues individually, so my agreement rests on the Wende framework and the facts stated rather than on independent review of the record.

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 may so advise the court but should identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal to assist the court's review.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion applies the correct Wende/Anders framework, recites the facts and the possible issues identified by counsel, confirms the defendant was offered the chance to file her own brief, and states that it reviewed the entire record. It offers no individual analysis of the five flagged issues, but none is required in a Wende affirmance and the facts recited are consistent with the conclusion that no arguable issue exists.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 1/5/15 P. v. Lopez 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, D065709

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCE335103)

EILEEN LOPEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Lantz Lewis, Judge. Affirmed.

Stephanie M. Adraktas, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

A jury convicted Eileen Lopez of robbery (Pen. Code,1 § 211) and making a criminal threat (§ 422). Lopez was sentenced to a two-year prison term plus various fines and fees.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. Lopez filed a timely notice of appeal.

Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), indicating counsel has been unable to identify any reasonably arguable issue for reversal on appeal and asks this court to review the record for error.

Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has listed a series of possible, but not reasonably arguable, issues to assist this court in reviewing the record. We offered Lopez the opportunity to file her own brief on appeal but she has not responded.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

On October 30, 2013, Lopez, another woman and a male were observed entering a CVS store in Lemon Grove. Store employee Dorothy Cook observed the trio taking various items from the shelves and secreting them in a stroller and a diaper bag.

When Cook approached the group outside the store and identified herself as a "CVS Security" person, she was encountered by Lopez. Lopez approached Cook and "chest bumped" her several times. Lopez repeatedly threatened Cook saying "Bitch, I'm going to fuck you up." At one point in the encounter, Lopez asked her female companion to "get the knife."

Cook was frightened and retreated to the store. When she was able to calm down she called 911 and reported the events and the threats.

Cook testified it was hard for her to continue to work at the same store because she did not know when Lopez might come back and harm her.

2 Lopez was arrested the following day. Sheriff's deputies found clothes matching the description of the suspect and also found a bag of items from a CVS store.

DISCUSSION

As we have noted appellate counsel has asked this court to review the record for error pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel has indicated she has been unable to identify any reasonably arguable issue for reversal on appeal. Counsel has identified the following possible, but not reasonably arguable issues:

1. Whether there was sufficient evidence of sustained fear by the victim to support the conviction for making a criminal threat?

2. Was the trial court required to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of attempted criminal threats?

3. Did the trial court err in admitting the contents of the 911 tape?

4. Was the trial court required to give a unanimity instruction regarding the robbery count?

5. Was the trial court required to instruct the jury on the offense of simple assault as a lesser included offense of robbery?

We have reviewed the entire record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738 and have not discovered any reasonably arguable issue for reversal on appeal. Lopez has been represented by competent counsel on this appeal.

3 DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

HALLER, J.

AARON, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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