People v. Edwards CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD240289
- Trial judge
- Dwayne K. Moring
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Alex C. McDonald (author), Gilbert Nares, McINTYRE
Analysis
The trial court denied the defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea and sentenced him to three years of formal probation with 180 days in custody. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after a Wende review found no reasonably arguable issues.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea“whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Edwards's motion to withdraw his guilty plea” | abuse of discretion | not reached | agree with court The appellate court did not analyze the merits of this issue because appointed counsel identified it as 'possible, but not arguable' and the court's independent Wende review disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. |
Imposition of fines and fees“whether there was error in imposing various fines and fees at sentencing” | unclear | not reached | agree with court The court noted this as a possible issue but did not address it on the merits, relying instead on the conclusion that no reasonably arguable issues existed in the record. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Establishes the duty of appellate counsel to file a brief identifying potential issues and the court's duty to independently review the record when no arguable issues are found.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to file a brief identifying any arguable issues, even if counsel believes the appeal is frivolous.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for handling appeals where appointed counsel finds no arguable issues. The court performed the required independent review of the record and affirmed the judgment based on the absence of reasonably arguable errors.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court denied Edwards's motion to withdraw his guilty plea to possessing marijuana for sale, after his former deputy public defender identified him as the client he represented at the change of plea, and sentenced him to three years of formal probation, 180 days in custody with 632 days of credit, and various fines and fees. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief, Edwards 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of Edwards's motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which alleged he never appeared with Deputy Public Defender Haughton and that his signature on the change of plea form was forged“The trial court denied the motion and sentenced Edwards to three years of formal probation, 180 days in custody (with credit for 632 days) and ordered payment of various fines and fees.” | abuse of discretion | correct | agree with court The opinion identifies the issue as whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion, which is the correct standard for a Penal Code section 1018 motion. The record recited shows the attorney who handled the plea personally identified Edwards as his client, which is a sufficient factual basis to reject the forgery claim; nothing in the opinion suggests the court applied the wrong standard or ignored evidence. The opinion does not discuss whether a certificate of probable cause was obtained, but under Wende review the court's conclusion that no arguable issue exists is supported by the facts stated. |
Imposition of various fines and fees at sentencing“whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Edwards's motion to withdraw his guilty plea, and whether there was error in imposing various fines and fees at sentencing.” | unclear | correct | unsure The opinion does not identify the specific fines and fees or the statutory basis for any of them, so there is no way to independently verify their propriety from the opinion. The court's Wende review found no arguable error, and nothing in the opinion points to a facially unauthorized fine, so there is no basis to disagree, but the record as recited is too thin to be confident. |
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 arguable error before affirming.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous must so advise the court and file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, with the court then deciding whether the case is frivolous.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion follows the Wende/Anders procedure correctly: counsel identified possible issues, the defendant was given the chance to file a supplemental brief and did not, and the court independently reviewed the record and found no arguable issues. It is minimal by design and does not discuss the standard of review, the certificate of probable cause requirement for an appeal challenging the validity of a plea, or the specific fines imposed, but nothing in the record recited suggests the result is wrong.
Opinion
Filed 1/6/15 P. v. Edwards 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, D065855
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD240289)
HAROLD LEE EDWARDS, JR., Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Dwayne K. Moring, Judge. Affirmed.
Sheila Quinlan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant Harold Lee Edwards, Jr., was charged with one count of unlawfully possessing marijuana for sale (Health & Saf., Code § 11359) and an allegation he suffered a prior serious or violent felony conviction (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12 & 668). Edwards, represented by Deputy Public Defender Haughton, entered into a plea bargain with the prosecution pursuant to which Edwards pleaded guilty to the charged offense; as part of the plea agreement, the prosecution agreed to request no more than one year at sentencing, and the court indicated it would consider a 180 day lid and alternatives to custody. Edwards agreed to those terms and pleaded guilty to the charged offense, and the court granted the prosecution's motion to dismiss the remainder of the allegations.
Nearly two years later, Edwards moved to withdraw his guilty plea, alleging he never attended a court appearance with Deputy Public Defender Haughton, never signed the change of plea form in this case, and someone else forged his signature on that form.
However, at the hearing on Edwards's motion to withdraw his guilty plea, Deputy Public Defender Haughton appeared and identified Edwards as the person he represented at the time of the change of plea. The trial court denied the motion and sentenced Edwards to three years of formal probation, 180 days in custody (with credit for 632 days) and ordered payment of various fines and fees.
Edwards subsequently filed a notice of appeal. We affirm the judgment.
FACTS
On April 9, 2012, Edwards unlawfully possessed marijuana for sale.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the proceedings below.
Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738. Counsel has identified as possible, but not arguable, issues:
2 whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Edwards's motion to withdraw his guilty plea, and whether there was error in imposing various fines and fees at sentencing.
We granted Edwards permission to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf, but he has not responded. A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738 has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Edwards has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
McDONALD, J.
WE CONCUR:
NARES, Acting P. J.
McINTYRE, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12