People v. Sanders CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D064743 · 2015-03-24 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD235740
Trial judge: Robert F. O'Neill
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: McINTYRE (author), Gilbert Nares, Cynthia Aaron

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T06:20Z · confidence high

The trial court denied Sanders's motion to withdraw his negotiated guilty plea and sentenced him to 25 years in prison. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, finding no reasonably arguable issues on appeal and determining that Sanders's waiver of appellate rights was valid.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea “In September, the court denied Sanders's motion to withdraw his plea.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The appellate court did not explicitly analyze the trial court's denial of the motion to withdraw the plea. Instead, it relied on the procedural bar of the waiver of appellate rights and the absence of a certificate of probable cause to dismiss the challenge to the plea's validity. Because the court affirmed based on procedural grounds (waiver) rather than substantive review of the withdrawal motion, the specific standard of review for that ruling is not stated in the opinion.
Validity of waiver of appellate rights “The record shows Sanders's waiver of appellate rights was knowing, intelligent and voluntary.”	de novo	correct	agree with court The court reviewed the record to determine if the waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. It concluded that the waiver was valid, thereby barring Sanders from appealing the judgment. This is a standard procedural determination in California criminal appeals where a plea includes an appeal waiver.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to conduct an independent review of the record for error when no issues are raised.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires counsel to identify any arguable issues in a brief when they believe an appeal is frivolous.
relied: People v. Maultsby (2012) 53 Cal.4th 296 — A guilty plea admits every element of the offense charged and is a conclusive admission of guilt.
relied: People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084 — The absence of a certificate of probable cause prevents a defendant from challenging the validity of a guilty plea on appeal.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the Wende/Anders framework and the statutory bar under Penal Code section 1237.5. It relies on established precedent to affirm the judgment based on the valid waiver of appeal rights and the lack of a probable cause certificate.

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 accepted Sanders's negotiated guilty plea to two counts of kidnapping with gang enhancements (part of a five-case deal for a stipulated 25-year term and an appellate waiver), denied his motion to withdraw the plea, and imposed the 25-year sentence. On appeal under Wende/Anders, with Sanders filing his own supplemental brief attacking the plea, the withdrawal denial, prosecutorial misconduct and counsel's performance, the Court of Appeal held the absence of a certificate of probable cause and the valid appellate waiver barred those claims, found no arguable issue, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Acceptance of the negotiated guilty plea and denial of Sanders's motion to withdraw the plea (challenged by Sanders in his pro per supplemental brief) “The absence of a certificate of probable cause prevents Sanders from challenging the validity of his guilty plea. (§ 1237.5; People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.)”	de novo	not reached	agree with court Section 1237.5 and Mendez squarely bar a defendant from attacking the validity of a guilty plea on appeal without a certificate of probable cause, and a denial of a motion to withdraw a plea is treated as such an attack. The court correctly treated this as a threshold legal bar rather than reaching the merits of the withdrawal ruling. Sanders's prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance claims, insofar as they go to the plea, fall under the same bar; the opinion addresses them only implicitly, which is a gap but not an error.
Acceptance of Sanders's waiver of the right to appeal as part of the plea bargain “The record shows Sanders's waiver of appellate rights was knowing, intelligent and voluntary.”	unclear	correct	agree with court A knowing, intelligent and voluntary general waiver of appellate rights negotiated as part of a plea bargain is enforceable under Supreme Court authority, and the appellate waiver here was a stated term of the five-case bargain for a stipulated 25-year sentence. The court's conclusion is conclusory—it cites no authority and does not describe the plea colloquy—but nothing in the opinion suggests the waiver was defective, and appointed counsel flagged the issue only as a non-arguable one. The result is defensible on this record.
Judgment and 25-year stipulated sentence (independent Wende/Anders review of the entire record) “A review of the record pursuant to Wende and Anders, including the possible issue listed pursuant to Anders, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue.”	de novo	correct	agree with court Where appointed counsel files a Wende brief the appellate court must independently review the record and, under Kelly, address contentions the defendant raises personally; the opinion recites the facts and procedure, lists counsel's Anders issue, identifies Sanders's contentions and disposes of them by the certificate and waiver bars. The sentence described (five-year middle term plus 10-year gang enhancement, concurrent terms on the second count) matches the stipulated bargain. Nothing in the opinion suggests an arguable error was overlooked.

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.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal frivolous must so advise the court and identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
relied: People v. Maultsby (2012) 53 Cal.4th 296 — A guilty plea admits every element of the charged offense and is a conclusive admission of guilt.
relied: People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084 — Section 1237.5's certificate of probable cause requirement is strictly applied; without a certificate a defendant cannot challenge the validity of a guilty plea on appeal.
missed: People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 — In a Wende appeal the Court of Appeal must issue an opinion describing the facts and procedural history and must address contentions the defendant raises in a pro se supplemental brief; the opinion complies in substance but does not cite Kelly.
missed: People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68 — A knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver of the right to appeal negotiated as part of a plea bargain is enforceable, and a challenge to a stipulated sentence is in substance a challenge to the plea requiring a certificate of probable cause; this authority would have supported the court's otherwise unsupported waiver finding.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The result is correct: the certificate requirement under section 1237.5 and Mendez, together with the negotiated appellate waiver, bar Sanders's attacks on the plea and the withdrawal ruling, and independent Wende review disclosed nothing arguable. The opinion is thin, however—it declares the waiver knowing and voluntary without citing Panizzon or describing the colloquy, and it disposes of the prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance contentions only by implication rather than explaining why they fall within the certificate and waiver bars.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

Filed 3/24/15 P. v. Sanders 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, D064743

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD235740)

STEPHEN CHARLES SANDERS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Robert F.

O'Neill, Judge. Affirmed.

Russell S. Babcock, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In June 2013, Stephen Charles Sanders entered a negotiated guilty plea to two counts of kidnapping (Pen. Code, § 207, subd. (a); counts 4 and 8); all further statutory references are to the Penal Code), each with a gang enhancement (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)). At the time of the plea bargain, Sanders had four other pending trial court cases: case No. SCD204952 (Court of Appeal No. D064744), case No. SCD216604 (Court of Appeal No. D064775), case No. SCD222861 (Court of Appeal No. D064749) and case No.

SCD239270 (Court of Appeal No. D064746). The plea bargain provided, as to all five cases, for a stipulated 25-year sentence and waiver of the right to appeal. In September, the court denied Sanders's motion to withdraw his plea. The court sentenced Sanders to 25 years in prison including, in the instant case, the five-year middle term on count 4, a 10-year term for the gang enhancement and concurrent terms on count 8 and its enhancement. Sanders appeals. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

In April 2007, Sanders was president of the San Diego chapter of the Hells Angels, deemed by law enforcement to be an outlaw motorcycle gang. At a Hells Angels meeting in their clubhouse, Sanders called for a vote, and Nick Neff was voted out of the Hells Angels in bad standing. Neff was attacked and, at Sanders's direction, taken outside and restrained. Neff was brought back into the clubhouse and Sanders restrained him while, at Sanders's direction, Hells Angels vice president David Dabbs used a tattoo gun to obliterate all of Neff's tattoos. Sanders warned Neff that if he spoke to the police, the Hells Angels would cut off his head. Sanders and two other Hells Angels' members took Neff, in Sanders's truck, to retrieve the title to Neff's motorcycle. Neff signed over the title under duress. Sanders and the two other Hells Angels' members then took Neff to Neff's home, where the two other members escorted Neff inside. There, the two members took a television, a Hells Angels calendar and photographs of Hells Angels' 2 members. In June 2011, Neff's motorcycle was recovered outside the clubhouse in the possession of a Hells Angels' member.

In May 2010, Preston James worked at a motorcycle shop owned by Sanders's wife. Sanders arrived at the shop with two other Hells Angels' members, Kirtith Nielsen and Mike Ottinger, and Shane Sanders (Shane), Sanders's son and later president of the Wrecking Machine, a motorcycle group run by Sanders. Sanders asked James to help load tables and chairs into a truck. As James lifted a stack of chairs, Nielsen hit him in the back of the head with a baseball bat. The blow caused James to stumble and defecate.

As Ottinger acted as a look out, Nielsen hit James several more times with the bat.

Nielsen, Shane and Sanders punched James. James was knocked to the ground.

Stephens took James's cell phone and knife and told him they were going to take his motorcycle. At Sanders's direction, Shane and Nielsen put James in Shane's truck and drove him to James's home to get James's guns. Sanders and Ottinger also went to James's home, in Sanders's truck. Sanders and Ottinger went into the home, then came out with James's gun, a gun belonging to James's roommate and items bearing Hells Angels' insignias. James was allowed to get out of Shane's truck, and Sanders and his three companions left. James went inside and discovered the pink slips for his two motorcycles and his car were missing.

James suffered multiple facial fractures and broken ribs. He was hospitalized and underwent surgery. Without James's knowledge, title to one of his motorcycles was transferred to Aden Stay, former president of the Wrecking Machine and a friend of Sanders. Sanders had the motorcycle shipped to Stay in Hawaii. In March 2011, the 3 motorcycle was shipped back to Sanders in San Diego. Without James's knowledge, the motorcycle was reregistered in his name. Sanders called James and said, "Nobody needs to go into handcuffs over this." The motorcycle was subsequently recovered in San Diego by James. While in custody, Sanders attempted to enlist others to kill witnesses, victims, a law enforcement agent and deputy district attorneys associated with the prosecution of this case.

DISCUSSION

Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and 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 (Wende). Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel lists, as a possible, but not arguable, issue, whether the waiver of appellate rights was knowing, intelligent and voluntary.

We granted Sanders permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has done so and raises contentions concerning the validity of his plea, the denial of his plea withdrawal motion, prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel.

"A guilty plea admits every element of the offense charged and is a conclusive admission of guilt." (People v. Maultsby (2012) 53 Cal.4th 296, 302.) The absence of a certificate of probable cause prevents Sanders from challenging the validity of his guilty plea. (§ 1237.5; People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.) Furthermore, as part of his plea, Sanders waived the right to appeal. The record shows Sanders's waiver of appellate rights was knowing, intelligent and voluntary.

4 A review of the record pursuant to Wende and Anders, including the possible issue listed pursuant to Anders, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Sanders has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

MCINTYRE, J.

WE CONCUR:

NARES, Acting P. J.

AARON, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Maultsby S182042 · 2012-01-05
People v. Mendez No. S066175 · 1999-01-14
People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12