People v. Meloan CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD252746
- Trial judge
- Timothy R. Walsh
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Patricia D. Benke (author), Gilbert Nares, McINTYRE
Analysis
The trial court accepted a guilty plea for inflicting corporal injury on a cohabitant and sentenced the defendant to seven years in prison. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record found no reasonably arguable appellate issues.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Affirmance of the judgment following a Wende/Anders review“A review of the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue.” | de novo | not reached | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for reviewing a record when appointed counsel files a Wende brief. The court independently reviewed the record and found no arguable issues, which is the required procedure under People v. Wende and Anders v. California. The defendant's personal brief did not raise any arguable issues, so affirmance was the correct disposition. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Appointed appellate counsel must file a brief identifying arguable issues or, if none exist, invite the court to review the record for error.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel must file a brief identifying arguable issues or, if none exist, invite the court to review the record for error.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it follows the required Wende/Anders protocol. It correctly identifies that the defendant's personal brief did not raise arguable issues and that the court's independent review found no error.
After Meloan pled guilty to inflicting corporal injury on a cohabitant (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)) and admitted a great bodily injury/domestic violence enhancement (§ 12022.7, subd. (e)), the trial court imposed midterm sentences totaling seven years, citing the severity of the victim's skull fracture and brain bleeding and Meloan's failure to take responsibility. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief, Meloan filed a personal brief criticizing the court's murder remark, claiming provocation, and asserting his trial counsel said the prosecutor wanted only four to five years; the Court of Appeal found no arguable issue and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Imposition of the midterm of three years on the § 273.5 count and the midterm of four years on the § 12022.7, subd. (e) enhancement (seven years total), including the court's remark that but for prompt intervention Meloan could have faced a murder charge.“The trial court relied on the serious nature of the injuries Diot suffered and Meloan's failure to take responsibility for his conduct either at the time of the crime or in his interview with the probation officer.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The opinion does not articulate a standard, but sentencing choices are reviewed for abuse of discretion and a midterm requires no statement of reasons. The court chose the presumptive midterm on both the offense and the enhancement, within the nine-year maximum Meloan was advised of at the plea, and its reasons (gravity of injury, lack of remorse) are legitimate sentencing considerations; the comment about a potential murder charge is a characterization of the seriousness of the injury rather than reliance on an uncharged offense. Nothing in the opinion suggests an arguable sentencing error. |
Rejection of Meloan's personal-brief contentions (provocation, unexpected force of the fall, and trial counsel's alleged statement that the prosecutor sought only four to five years) as not presenting an arguable appellate issue following his guilty plea.“None of the contentions in Meloan's brief sets forth an arguable appellate issue.” | de novo | correct | agree with court The provocation and force arguments go to guilt and were forfeited by the guilty plea; the appeal was expressly limited to post-plea matters under rule 8.304(b) and no certificate of probable cause is mentioned. The claim about counsel's statement regarding the prosecutor's wishes rests on matters outside the record and is undercut by the trial court's advisement that Meloan faced up to nine years and that neither the court nor the prosecutor was obligated to seek less. The court's conclusion is defensible, although its explanation is cursory. |
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, which must then conduct its own examination of the record to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous.
- missed: People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 — In a Wende appeal, the Court of Appeal's opinion should set out the contentions raised in the defendant's supplemental brief and explain why they fail; the court recited Meloan's contentions but gave only a conclusory one-sentence rejection without citing Kelly or explaining the reasons.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court properly followed the Wende/Anders procedure, permitted a personal brief, and reached the correct result because the sentence was a lawful midterm within the advised maximum and the defendant's remaining complaints were either forfeited by the plea or outside the record. It is a gap that the opinion rejects Meloan's contentions in a single conclusory sentence without explaining why each fails or citing People v. Kelly, and it does not identify the standard of review for the sentencing decision.
Opinion
Filed 4/1/15 P. v. Meloan 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, D066129
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD252746)
MARCUS MARION MELOAN,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Timothy R. Walsh, Judge. Affirmed.
Richard Jay Moller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In this criminal case, appointed appellate counsel filed a brief presenting no argument for reversal but inviting this court to review the record for error in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We gave defendant and appellant Marcus Marion Meloan an opportunity to file a brief on his own behalf, and he has done so. After having independently reviewed the entire record for error, as required by Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) and Wende, we affirm.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In 2012 and 2013 Meloan was involved in a romantic relationship with Sarah Diot, the victim in this case. During the course of their relationship, they lived together for approximately three months; at all other relevant times they lived apart. On the morning of December 7, 2013, Diot was making breakfast for Meloan at the apartment she shared with her sister Lindsey Diot. According to Meloan, Diot asked him if he could help her with her rent and he declined. According to Diot, Meloan suddenly got up from where he was sitting and, in a rage, picked her up at the waist and slammed her body to the floor.
Meloan immediately left the apartment, with Diot on the floor where her sister discovered her. Lindsey Diot stated that she found her sister on the floor, holding her head and complaining that her head hurt. Diot told her sister that Meloan had "body slammed" her.
Diot complained of nausea and a feeling her brain was swelling. Lindsey Diot helped Diot change and began driving Diot to the hospital. On the way to the hospital, Diot experienced a seizure and her sister stopped the car and called 911; emergency medical personnel responded and took Diot to the hospital in an ambulance, where she experienced additional seizures.
At the hospital, Lindsey Diot contacted Meloan. In texts to Lindsey Diot, Meloan claimed variously that Diot had fallen off a coffee table and had fallen on him.
At the hospital, doctors discovered a fracture at the rear of Diot's skull and bleeding at three points in her brain. Diot was placed in a medically-induced coma for two and a half weeks. Diot was released from the hospital after a month and was taking 2 anti-anxiety and anti-seizure medications at the time of the preliminary hearing.
After being arrested and following a preliminary hearing, Meloan pled guilty to one count of inflicting corporal injury on a cohabitant (Pen. Code,1 § 273.5, subd. (a))
and admitted he inflicted great bodily injury under circumstances involving domestic violence within the meaning of section 12022.7, subdivision (e). At the time of his guilty plea, the trial court advised Meloan that, given his plea, Meloan could be sentenced to a maximum of nine years in prison; the trial court was under no obligation to impose a lesser sentence; and the prosecutor was not obligated to seek a lesser sentence.
After considering the probation report, the trial court imposed the midterm of three years imprisonment on the assault conviction and the midterm of four years on the bodily injury enhancement for a total sentence of seven years. The trial court relied on the serious nature of the injuries Diot suffered and Meloan's failure to take responsibility for his conduct either at the time of the crime or in his interview with the probation officer.
The trial court stated that but for the intervention of Diot's sister and prompt medical intervention, Meloan would have been charged with murder. Following imposition of his sentence, Meloan filed a notice of appeal based on matters that occurred after he pled guilty and did not affect the validity of his appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b).)
DISCUSSION
As we have indicated, appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings in the trial court. Counsel has presented no argument for reversal and has invited this court to review the record for error in accordance with 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 3 Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. As we have also indicated, we gave Meloan leave to file a personal brief and he has done so.
In his brief, Meloan criticizes the trial court's reference to the potential Diot's injuries may have been fatal and he might have been charged with murder. Meloan also argues that Diot provoked him and that, although he threw Diot to the floor, the force with which she hit the floor was unexpected. Meloan also concedes that he left the premises after throwing Diot to the floor. In addition, Meloan's brief states his trial counsel told him that the prosecutor only wanted a sentence of four to five years but that the prosecutor wanted to see a probation report. None of the contentions in Meloan's brief sets forth an arguable appellate issue.
A review of the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Meloan has been represented by competent counsel on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
BENKE, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
NARES, J.
McINTYRE, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12