People v. Wheeler CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D066423 · 2015-03-06 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCE336175
Trial judge: Daniel B. Goldstein
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Gilbert Nares (author), O'Rourke, Joan K. Irion

Analysis

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

The trial court denied Wheeler's motions for modification and reconsideration of his sentence following a guilty plea to a lewd and lascivious act on a child. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record found no reasonably arguable issues of error.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of motion for modification of sentence “The court denied the motion for modification of the sentence.”	unclear	not reached	agree with court The appellate court did not review this specific ruling on the merits because appointed counsel filed a Wende brief stating no arguable issues existed, and the court's independent review confirmed no error.
Denial of motion for reconsideration “The court denied the motion for reconsideration.”	unclear	not reached	agree with court The appellate court did not review this specific ruling on the merits because appointed counsel filed a Wende brief stating no arguable issues existed, and the court's independent review confirmed no error.

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 presented.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to file a brief identifying any arguable issues or explaining why none exist.
relied: People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 — Establishes the standard for replacing court-appointed counsel.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for appointed counsel who identifies no arguable issues. The court explicitly states it conducted an independent review of the record and found no error, which satisfies the constitutional requirements for representation on appeal.

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 denied Wheeler's Marsden motion, accepted his guilty plea to a lewd act on a child under 14 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)) with an admitted substantial-sexual-conduct allegation, sentenced him to the six-year midterm with fines, fees, restitution, and sex-offender registration, and later denied his letter motions to modify the sentence and for reconsideration as well as his requests for a certificate of probable cause. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief raising no issues, Wheeler 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 on guilty plea and six-year midterm sentence with restitution fine, assessments, booking fee, victim restitution, custody credits, and registration order “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 issue.”	mixed	correct	agree with court The sentence components recited in the opinion are facially lawful: six years is the midterm for section 288(a); 25 days of conduct credit on 168 actual days matches the 15 percent cap of section 2933.1 for a violent felony; the $1,800 restitution fine is within the statutory range; the $40 and $30 assessments are the mandated amounts; registration is mandatory under section 290. Nothing in the recited record suggests an arguable issue, so the Wende affirmance is supported.
Denial of Marsden motion to replace appointed counsel “The court thereafter denied Wheeler's Marsden2 request that the court replace his court-appointed counsel.”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion gives no facts about the Marsden hearing, and because the ruling preceded the guilty plea and no certificate of probable cause issued, it would not be cognizable on appeal in any event under section 1237.5. The implicit conclusion that it presents no arguable issue is defensible, but the opinion supplies no record from which to independently confirm it.
Denial of post-judgment letter motions construed as a motion to modify sentence and a motion for reconsideration “The court denied the motion for modification of the sentence.”	abuse of discretion	correct	agree with court The court had imposed the presumptive midterm and the letters merely expressed disagreement with the sentence; refusing to recall or modify a lawful midterm sentence is well within the trial court's discretion, and the opinion's finding of no arguable issue is consistent with that.

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.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal frivolous may so advise the court and refer to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, triggering the court's own review.
relied: People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 — A defendant seeking substitution of appointed counsel must be allowed to state the reasons, and the court must inquire into the complaints before ruling.
missed: People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084 — Absent a certificate of probable cause under Penal Code section 1237.5, an appeal from a guilty plea is limited to post-plea matters not affecting the plea's validity; the opinion did not note this limit on the scope of its review although the trial court twice denied a certificate.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion follows the Wende/Anders procedure, recites the procedural history and facts, confirms the defendant was invited to file a supplemental brief and did not, and the recited sentence and credits are facially lawful, so the affirmance is correct. It does not mention that the denial of a certificate of probable cause confined the appeal to post-plea issues, but that omission does not affect the result.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 3/6/15 P. v. Wheeler 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, D066423

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCE336175)

RICHARD MICHAEL WHEELER,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Daniel B.

Goldstein, Judge. Affirmed.

John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Respondent.

INTRODUCTION

In an amended felony complaint filed on January 29, 2014, Richard Michael Wheeler was charged with committing a lewd and lascivious act on a child under the age of 14 in violation of Penal Code1 section 288, subdivision (a). It was also that alleged Wheeler had substantial sexual contact with the victim within the meaning of section 1203.066, subdivision (a)(8).

The court thereafter denied Wheeler's Marsden2 request that the court replace his court-appointed counsel. After waiving his constitutional rights, Wheeler pleaded guilty and admitted the substantial sexual conduct allegation. His counsel agreed with the guilty plea and acknowledged that Wheeler's waivers of his rights were made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently.

The court thereafter sentenced Wheeler to the midterm of six years in state prison.

Wheeler was awarded 168 days of actual custody credits and 25 days of conduct credits.

He was ordered to pay the following fines and fees: (1) a restitution fine of $1,800; (2) a parole revocation fine of $1,800 which was suspended; (3) a court operations assessment of $40; (4) a conviction assessment of $30; (5) a criminal justice administration (booking) fee of $154; and (6) restitution of $441 to the El Cajon Police Department for the cost of the victim's forensic medical examination. Wheeler was ordered to register as a sex offender (§ 290) and also ordered to have no contact with the victim.

On June 10 and June 18, 2014, Wheeler sent letters to the court stating that he disagreed with the sentence. On July 1 of that year the court issued an order indicating it 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118. 2 had construed the letter Wheeler filed on June 10, 2014, as a motion for modification of the sentence. The court denied the motion for modification of the sentence.

On August 1, 2014, the trial court issued an order indicating it had construed the letter Wheeler filed on June 18, 2014, as a motion for reconsideration of its July 1, 2014, order denying Wheeler's request for modification of the sentence. The court denied the motion for reconsideration.

On July 18, 2014, Wheeler filed a notice of appeal. He requested the issuance of a certificate of probable cause. The court thereafter denied the request for the issuance of a certificate of probable cause.

On July 28, 2014, Wheeler filed another notice of appeal. He again requested the issuance of a certificate of probable cause. The trial court denied that request.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND3

On November 12, 2013, a long-time friend allowed Wheeler, who had been sleeping in his car because his mother had removed him from their residence, to sleep on the floor of her three-bedroom trailer. The friend had three children, ages 10, 14, and 15.

The victim was 10 years old. Wheeler touched the victim's vagina inside her underwear.

Wheeler voluntarily surrendered to the El Cajon Police Department, admitted that he had touched the victim's vaginal area with his hand, but denied that he touched her "skin to skin."

3 As Wheeler entered a guilty plea before a preliminary hearing was held in this matter, the following factual background is derived from the post-plea probation report. 3 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. Counsel has not referred to any possible, but not arguable, issues pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U. S.

738.

We granted Wheeler permission to file a brief on his own behalf. 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 issue. Wheeler has been represented adequately by appellate counsel.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NARES, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

O'ROURKE, J.

IRION, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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