People v. Klabin CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D065954 · 2015-04-13 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD245451-02
Trial judge: Jeffrey F. Fraser
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: O'Rourke (author), Richard D. Huffman, Sr., Gilbert Nares

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T06:19Z · confidence high

The trial court convicted Kenneth Lee Klabin of conspiracy to sell methamphetamine, possession for sale, and receiving proceeds from controlled substance offenses, and sentenced him to eight years in prison. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, finding no reasonably arguable issues of error.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Independent review of the record for error (Wende review) “A review of the record pursuant to Wende and Anders, including the possible issues listed pursuant to Anders, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues.”	de novo	not reached	agree with court The court performed a standard Wende review, examining the record for any reasonably arguable issues, including those flagged by counsel under Anders, and found none. This is the correct procedural mechanism for an appeal where appointed counsel presents no argument for reversal.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Appointed appellate counsel must conduct an independent review of the record to identify any reasonably arguable issues if no issues are presented in the brief.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel may file a brief stating there are no arguable issues but must identify potential issues for the court's independent review.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the Wende/Anders framework for reviewing a case where appointed counsel presents no argument. The court explicitly states it reviewed the record and the specific issues flagged by counsel, finding no error, which satisfies the constitutional requirements for effective assistance of appellate 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

A San Diego jury convicted Klabin of conspiracy to sell methamphetamine, possession of methamphetamine for sale, and receiving over $25,000 in controlled-substance proceeds, and after he admitted prior drug convictions the trial court sentenced him to eight years in prison. On appeal appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief listing six possible issues, Klabin 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 and eight-year sentence (independent Wende/Anders review of the entire record) “A review of the record pursuant to Wende and Anders, including the possible issues listed pursuant to Anders, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The court followed the required Wende procedure: counsel filed a no-issue brief identifying possible issues, the defendant was invited to file his own brief and did not, and the court states it independently reviewed the record. The opinion recites facts, procedural history, crimes and punishment as Wende practice requires. The facts recited (text and call records tying Klabin's phone to the controlled buy, cell-site movement toward the 7-Eleven, 100 grams of methamphetamine and $10,000 at his residence, $30,000 and a scale in his safe deposit box) amply support the convictions. Nothing in the opinion suggests a misapplication of law, but the opinion gives no substantive analysis, so agreement rests on the procedural regularity of the review rather than reasoning one can test.
Sufficiency of evidence on Health & Safety Code § 11370.9, subd. (a) (intent to conceal proceeds to avoid transaction reporting requirement) “whether there is substantial evidence Klabin intended to conceal or disguise the nature, location, ownership, control or source of proceeds to avoid a transaction reporting requirement”	substantial evidence	correct	unsure The court listed this as a possible issue flagged by counsel and implicitly found it not arguable, but provided no analysis. The recited facts show more than $30,000 in cash kept in a private safe deposit box at a storage facility along with a scale and $10,000 in cash at home, which could support an inference of concealment, but the opinion does not discuss the reporting-requirement element. Without reasoning in the opinion, I cannot independently confirm the result.
Denial of motion to suppress evidence obtained under search warrants (probable cause, reliance on priors, staleness) “whether the court erred by denying Klabin's motion to suppress evidence, whether there were valid grounds for issuing the search warrant, whether a court can rely on a defendant's priors to establish probable cause and whether the evidence relied upon to establish probable cause was stale”	unclear	correct	unsure The court treated this as not reasonably arguable without discussion. The facts recited show a logical chain of warrants (phone records, then residence, then safe deposit box) each based on information from the prior step, and the roughly six-week gap between the January 7 buy and the late-February residence search is not obviously stale for an ongoing drug-sales operation. Still, the opinion does not set out the warrant affidavits or the trial court's findings, so the ruling cannot be evaluated from the opinion alone.
Refusal to instruct the jury on third party culpability “whether the court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on third party culpability”	unclear	correct	unsure Listed as a possible issue and found not arguable, with no analysis. California law generally holds a third-party-culpability pinpoint instruction is unnecessary where standard reasonable-doubt instructions are given, which would make the issue non-arguable, but the opinion does not say what instructions were given or what the defense requested.
Finding that Klabin validly waived his Miranda rights “whether the court erred by finding Klabin had willingly waived his Miranda rights (Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436)”	unclear	correct	unsure The court found no arguable issue but the opinion contains no facts about the interrogation, the advisement, or the content of any statements, so there is nothing in the opinion to evaluate.
Refusal to sever counts 1 and 2 from counts 3 and 4 “whether the court's refusal to sever counts 1 and 2 from counts 3 and 4 constituted an abuse of discretion”	abuse of discretion	correct	unsure Severance denials are reviewed for abuse of discretion and joinder of same-class drug offenses is statutorily favored; the conspiracy/sale counts and the possession-for-sale and proceeds counts are of the same class and cross-admissible as part of a single investigation. The result is very likely correct, but the opinion offers no analysis.
Exclusion of codefendant Norris's post-Miranda statement that Klabin was not involved in the January 7, 2013 sale “whether the court erred by ruling inadmissible Norris's post-Miranda statement that Klabin was not involved in the January 7, 2013 sale”	unclear	correct	unsure The court found no arguable issue without discussion. Such a statement would be hearsay offered for its truth, and the opinion does not reveal whether Norris was unavailable or whether any exception (e.g., declaration against interest) was argued, so the correctness of the ruling cannot be assessed from the opinion.

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 request to withdraw, accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
relied: Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 — Statements from custodial interrogation are inadmissible unless preceded by advisement of rights and a knowing, voluntary waiver.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the Wende/Anders procedure correctly, recites the facts and procedural history, notes the defendant was given an opportunity to file a supplemental brief, and states it independently reviewed the record including counsel's listed issues. As is typical of Wende affirmances, it provides no substantive analysis of the six possible issues, so the result is defensible but cannot be independently verified from the opinion's reasoning.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 4/13/15 P. v. Klabin 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, D065954

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD245451-02)

KENNETH LEE KLABIN,

Defendant and Appellant.

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

Fraser, Judge. Affirmed.

Loleena Ansari, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In March 2014, a jury found Kenneth Lee Klabin guilty of conspiracy (with Hosea Norris) to sell methamphetamine (Pen. Code, § 182, subd. (a)(1), Health & Saf. Code,1 § 11379, subd. (a) (count 2)), possessing methamphetamine for sale (§ 11378 (count 3))

1 Further statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code. and receiving over $25,000 from controlled substance offenses (§ 11370.9, subd. (a)

(count 4)). Klabin waived his right to a jury trial and admitted he had one prior section 11351 conviction and three prior section 11378 convictions (§ 11370.2, subd. (c)

(counts 2 & 3)). In May, the court sentenced Klabin to eight years in prison: on count 2, the four-year upper term plus three years for one of the prior convictions; on count 3, a concurrent two-year middle term; and on count 4, one year (one-third the middle term).

The court dismissed the remaining priors. Klabin appeals. We affirm.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On January 7, 2013, San Diego Police Detective Christopher Leahy sent a text message to Klabin ordering "a half zip" (one-half ounce) of methamphetamine. Within 30 seconds, Klabin called Leahy. Detective Joseph Harper answered, posing as the person who had sent the text, and said he was interested in buying half a zip. Klabin was cautious, but became more comfortable when Harper cited names of "people in the dope community." Klabin said a person named Jose would call Harper and bring him the drugs. Leahy's phone rang again. He did not recognize the number. Harper answered and talked to a male who identified himself as Jose. After Jose vetted Harper, Harper said he wanted half a zip of methamphetamine. Jose agreed and said he would be back in contact. Leahy received text messages from Jose's phone number. Leahy offered to pay $450 and he and Jose arranged a meeting at a 7-Eleven store on Spruce Street.

Leahy and his team went to the 7-Eleven. Norris walked toward Leahy's car.

Leahy told Norris, "Hey, meet me over by the red box." Norris went toward the red box.

Leahy identified himself as a police officer and detained Norris. Another officer arrested 2 Norris. A search of Norris's person yielded one-half ounce of methamphetamine in a plastic bag and another plastic bag containing a smaller amount.

Leahy obtained a search warrant for records pertaining to the cell phone number Klabin used in their January 7, 2013, communications. Leahy obtained the records in early February. Klabin was listed as the subscriber. The records showed a text message from Leahy on January 7 and, seconds later, an outbound call to Leahy. The records also showed the phone moved south toward the area of the 7-Eleven at the relevant times.

The cell phone records listed Klabin's address. Further research indicated the address was Klabin's residence. Leahy obtained a search warrant. In late February 2013, he and Harper executed the search warrant at Klabin's home. Under the bed pillows was a box containing a digital scale, methamphetamine pipes, a syringe and approximately 100 grams of methamphetamine in bags. A backpack in a closet contained approximately $10,000 in cash. Documents in the apartment indicated Klabin had a safety deposit box at Blue Vault storage facility. Klabin was arrested.

Leahy obtained a search warrant for the safety deposit box. The police searched it and found more than $30,000 in cash; vials containing liquid; and a digital scale.

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 mentions the following as possible, but not arguable issues: (1) as to section 11370.9, 3 subdivision (a), whether there is substantial evidence Klabin intended to conceal or disguise the nature, location, ownership, control or source of proceeds to avoid a transaction reporting requirement; (2) whether the court erred by denying Klabin's motion to suppress evidence, whether there were valid grounds for issuing the search warrant, whether a court can rely on a defendant's priors to establish probable cause and whether the evidence relied upon to establish probable cause was stale; (3) whether the court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on third party culpability; (4) whether the court erred by finding Klabin had willingly waived his Miranda rights (Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

384 U.S. 436); (5) whether the court's refusal to sever counts 1 and 2 from counts 3 and 4 constituted an abuse of discretion; and (6) whether the court erred by ruling inadmissible Norris's post-Miranda statement that Klabin was not involved in the January 7, 2013 sale.

We granted Klabin permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded. A review of the record pursuant to Wende and Anders, including the possible issues listed pursuant to Anders, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues.

Klabin has been competently represented by appellate counsel.

4 DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

O'ROURKE, J.

WE CONCUR:

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

NARES, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12