People v. Rackley CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D066158 · 2015-03-05 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCE322135, SCD230576
Trial judges: Kenneth K. So; Timothy R. Walsh
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Alex C. McDonald, Patricia D. Benke

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T06:22Z · confidence low

The trial court revoked Rackley's probation in two prior felony cases based on new charges and sentenced her to the previously suspended seven-year term. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after 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
Revocation of probation and imposition of the suspended seven-year sentence “We have reviewed the entire record and have not discovered any reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal.”	de novo	not reached	agree with court The court did not explicitly state the standard of review for the underlying probation revocation, but in a Wende appeal, the court conducts an independent review of the record to identify any reasonably arguable issues. The court found no such issues, effectively affirming the trial court's exercise of discretion in revoking probation and sentencing.
Denial of Marsden motion “Rackley's motion under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden motion) was denied.”	abuse of discretion	not reached	unsure Counsel identified the denial of the Marsden motion as a possible issue, but the court did not provide specific reasoning for why it was not arguable, only stating that no reasonably arguable issues were found after reviewing the record. In Wende appeals, the court must review the record to ensure no arguable issues exist, and the court concluded none did.
Sufficiency of evidence for probation violations “Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the violations of probation?”	substantial evidence	not reached	agree with court Counsel raised the sufficiency of the evidence as a possible issue. The court, in its Wende review, examined the record and found no reasonably arguable issues, implying that the evidence was sufficient to support the probation violations. The court did not explicitly analyze the sufficiency but affirmed the judgment.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to review the record for error when no arguable issues are identified, and the court to conduct an independent review.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to withdraw from a case when no arguable issues exist, requiring a brief identifying possible issues and court review.
relied: People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 — Establishes the standard for granting a motion to appoint new counsel based on a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is a standard Wende/Anders review where the court independently examines the record for error. It is sound because it follows the required procedure for such appeals, although it lacks detailed analysis of the specific issues raised by counsel.

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

The trial court revoked Reece Rackley's probation in two prior felony cases (SCD230576 and SCE322135) based on evidence from the preliminary hearing on new charges, denied her Marsden motion, and imposed the previously suspended seven-year prison term. On appeal, counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief identifying three possible issues; the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no reasonably arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Use of facts established at the preliminary hearing in the new case (SCD253756) as the basis for formal revocation of probation in the two prior felony cases “Whether the court erred in using the facts established at the preliminary hearing in case No. SCD253756 as the basis for the formal revocation of probation in the other two felony cases?”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion recites that the court revoked probation following the preliminary hearing on the new charges but gives no detail about notice to the defendant that the preliminary hearing would serve as the revocation hearing, nor does it cite authority on the point. The result is plausible under settled practice but the opinion's bare Wende conclusion does not supply enough to evaluate it.
Denial of the defendant's Marsden motion for substitution of appointed counsel “Whether the court erred in denying Rackley's Marsden motion?”	unclear	correct	unsure Marsden denials are reviewed for abuse of discretion, but the opinion describes nothing about the hearing, the complaints raised, or the court's inquiry. Without any recited facts, the conclusion that there is no arguable issue cannot be independently confirmed from the opinion alone.
Finding that the evidence was sufficient to establish violations of probation “Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the violations of probation?”	unclear	correct	agree with court The opinion recites that on January 31, 2014, Rackley argued with Allen, threatened to stab and kill him, cut his leg with a knife, and damaged property. Under the preponderance standard that governs probation revocation, those facts amply support a violation finding, so the conclusion that no arguable sufficiency issue exists is supported by the recited 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 arguable error before affirming.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous may so advise the court and identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
relied: People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 — A defendant seeking substitution of appointed counsel must be permitted to state the reasons, and the court must inquire before ruling.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the standard Wende procedure, lists the Anders issues, and states that the entire record was reviewed, which is a defensible basis for affirmance in a no-issue appeal. It does not, however, explain why the three identified issues lack merit, cite any authority on them, or account for the disposition of the separately suspended six-year term in SCE322135, leaving gaps a reader cannot fill from the opinion.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 3/5/15 P. v. Rackley 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, D066158

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCE322135, SCD230576) REECE L. RACKLEY, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Kenneth K. So and Timothy R. Walsh, Judges. Affirmed.

Elisabeth A. Bowman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

This case presents an appeal from the sentences imposed following the revocation of probation in two separate felony cases. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), indicating she has been unable to identify any reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks this court to review the record for error as required by Wende. As we will set forth below, counsel has identified three possible, but not arguable issues to assist the court in the review of the record as required by Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders). We offered the appellant the opportunity to file her own brief on appeal, but she has not responded.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

In May 2011 Reece L. Rackley was convicted by a jury in case No. SCD230576 of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code,1 § 245, subd. (a)(1)), and corporal injury to a spouse or a roommate (§ 273.5, subd. (a)). The jury also found true allegations that Rackley used a knife and inflicted great bodily injury on the victim. (§ 1192.7, subds. (c)(8), (c)(23); § 12022.7, subd. (e).) The court suspended a seven-year prison term and granted probation for five years on various terms and conditions.

In case No. SCE322135 Rackley pled guilty in September 2012 to battery by gassing a peace officer (§ 243.9, subd. (a)) and admitted a strike prior. Rackley also admitted a violation of probation. The court suspended a six-year prison term and again placed Rackley on probation.

In February 2014, Rackley was charged with new offenses in case No.

SCD253756 including violations of sections 273.5, 245 and 422, as well as vandalism.

Following the preliminary hearing in case No. SCD253756, the court revoked Rackley's probation in the two prior felony cases.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. 2 Rackley's motion under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden motion)

was denied. Thereafter the court formally revoked and denied probation.

Rackley was sentenced to the seven-year term that had been previously suspended.

Rackley filed timely notices of appeal.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The offenses and the probation revocation all arise from acts during Rackley's relationship with Steven Allen.

The probation revocation followed from events on January 31, 2014. At that time Rackley got into an argument with Allen at his apartment. During the struggle that followed, Rackley threatened to stab and kill Allen and at one point cut him in the lower left leg with a knife. She also damaged several items of property.

DISCUSSION

As we have noted appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, indicating that she has not been able to identify any reasonably arguable issue for reversal on appeal. Pursuant to Anders, counsel has set forth the following possible, but not arguable issues for our consideration:

1. Whether the court erred in using the facts established at the preliminary hearing in case No. SCD253756 as the basis for the formal revocation of probation in the other two felony cases?

2. Whether the court erred in denying Rackley's Marsden motion?

3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the violations of probation?

3 We have reviewed the entire record and have not discovered any reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Rackley has been represented by competent counsel on appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

BENKE, Acting P. J.

McDONALD, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12
People v. Marsden Crim. 14119 · 1970-02-26