People v. Hill CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D065956 · 2015-04-16 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCE336393
Trial judge: William J. McGrath, Jr.
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Cynthia Aaron (author), Richard D. Huffman, Sr., McINTYRE

Analysis

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

The trial court sentenced the defendant to six years and eight months in prison for burglary and petty theft with priors, later recalling the sentence to designate the offenses as misdemeanors. The appellate court affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record found no reasonably arguable issues.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Independent review of the record for error (Wende/Anders 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 conducted an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende and Anders v. California, finding no reasonably arguable issues. The court affirmed the judgment based on this review.

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 presented.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires counsel to file a brief identifying any arguable issues and request leave to withdraw, allowing the court to review the record.
relied: People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 — Establishes the standard for determining whether a defendant is entitled to appointed counsel due to a conflict with retained counsel.
relied: Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 — Requires law enforcement to inform suspects of their rights before custodial interrogation.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is a standard Wende/Anders review where appointed counsel identified potential issues but found them not arguable. The court independently reviewed the record and found no error, which is the correct procedure for such appeals.

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 jury convicted Samuel Hill of three counts of burglary and three counts of petty theft with a prior, the court found a strike and four prison priors true, sentenced him to six years eight months, and later recalled the sentence and redesignated the counts as misdemeanors with stayed 180-day terms. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief listing eight possible issues, Hill filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Trial court's rejection of defense counsel's proposed addition to CALCRIM No. 315 asking whether the witness identified the defendant in a photographic or physical lineup “rejecting defense counsel's proposed addition to CALCRIM No. 315, "was the witness”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion does not analyze the instruction; it lists the issue as one counsel flagged and concludes after Wende review that no arguable issue exists. Nothing in the recited record (security camera footage of Hill concealing liquor, arrest on return to the store) suggests identification was a contested issue warranting a pinpoint addition, but the opinion gives too little to independently confirm.
Denial of Hill's request for a Marsden hearing just before the preliminary hearing “court erred in denying Hill's request for a Marsden hearing (People v. Marsden (1970) 2”	unclear	correct	unsure The court found no arguable issue after independent review but supplies no facts about the request or the ruling. Without the record of what Hill said and how the magistrate responded, the correctness of the ruling cannot be independently evaluated.
Sufficiency of the evidence that Hill committed burglary on count 3 “contains substantial evidence that Hill committed a burglary”	substantial evidence	correct	agree with court The recited facts show store security video of Hill opening his jacket, concealing liquor bottles, and leaving without paying, repeated on four dates. Entry with intent to steal is reasonably inferable from this pattern of conduct, so the conclusion that no arguable sufficiency issue exists is supported by the facts the opinion recites.
Refusal to bifurcate the hearing on Hill's 20-year-old robbery conviction “abused its discretion in failing to bifurcate the hearing on Hill's 20-year-old robbery”	abuse of discretion	correct	unsure The opinion identifies the issue only as counsel framed it and does not describe the ruling or its context. The opinion notes Hill waived jury trial on the prior-conviction allegations, which would ordinarily minimize any prejudice from non-bifurcation, but the record described is insufficient to evaluate independently.
Admission of Hill's statements to police over a Miranda custody objection “whether Hill was in custody once he was detained so that his statements to”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion gives no facts about the detention, the statements, or whether a suppression motion was made and ruled on. The court's Wende conclusion cannot be checked on this record.
Failure to hold an evidentiary hearing and a Marsden hearing on Hill's April 2014 letter requesting a new trial before imposing judgment “court should have held an evidentiary hearing on that request and a Marsden hearing”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion does not describe the contents of the letter or the trial court's response. Whether the letter triggered a duty to inquire under Marsden depends on whether it clearly indicated a request for substitute counsel, which the opinion does not disclose.
True findings on the four prison prior allegations “whether there was substantial evidence to support the”	substantial evidence	correct	agree with court The trial court ultimately dismissed the prison priors at sentencing, so any insufficiency in the findings would have had no effect on the judgment. The conclusion that this is not an arguable issue is therefore sound regardless of the underlying evidence.
Denial of Hill's motion to dismiss the strike “denying Hill's motion to dismiss the strike.”	abuse of discretion	correct	unsure The opinion does not discuss the Romero factors or the trial court's reasons. The sentence was later recalled and the counts redesignated as misdemeanors with stayed 180-day terms, so the strike's practical effect on the judgment appears limited, but the opinion does not supply enough to evaluate the ruling itself.
Judgment of conviction and sentence as a whole, reviewed under Wende/Anders “has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The court followed the required Wende procedure: it recited the facts and procedural history, listed the issues counsel identified under Anders, granted Hill leave to file his own brief, documented the returned mail, and stated it independently reviewed the record. This satisfies the procedure Wende and Anders require.

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 without merit may file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, after which the court independently examines the record.
relied: People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 — When a defendant seeks substitution of appointed counsel, the trial court must permit the defendant to explain the basis for the request and relate specific instances of inadequate performance.
relied: Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 — Statements obtained during custodial interrogation are inadmissible unless preceded by advisements of the right to remain silent and to counsel.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion follows the Wende/Anders procedure correctly: it recites the facts and proceedings, lists the eight potential issues counsel identified, documents the effort to let Hill file his own brief, and states that independent review disclosed no arguable issues. As is typical of Wende affirmances, it offers no substantive analysis of the individual issues, so its soundness rests on the procedural compliance rather than demonstrated reasoning on each point.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 4/16/15 P. v. Hill 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, D065956

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCE336393)

SAMUEL RUDOLPH HILL,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, William J.

McGrath, Jr., Judge. Affirmed.

Robert L.S. Angres, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In February 2014, a jury found Samuel Rudolph Hill guilty of three counts of burglary (Pen. Code, § 459;1 counts 3, 5 and 7) and three counts of petty theft with a 1 Further statutory references are to the Penal Code. prior theft conviction and imprisonment (§§ 484, 666, former subd. (b)(1); counts 4, 6 and 8). Hill waived his right to a jury trial on the allegations of prior convictions. In March, the court found that he had suffered one strike (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)) and had served four prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). In April, the court dismissed the prison priors and sentenced Hill to six years eight months in prison: four years on count 3 (twice the middle term), one year four months each (one-third the middle term, doubled) on counts 5 and 7 and stayed (§ 654) terms on counts 4, 6 and 8. In December, the court recalled the sentence, designated counts three through eight misdemeanors and stayed 180-day sentences on those counts. Hill appeals. We affirm.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On November 18, 2013, a grocery store security camera showed Hill open the jacket he was wearing, conceal bottles of liquor inside and leave the store without paying.

Similar incidents occurred on November 23, December 7 and December 11. On December 13, Hill returned to the store and was arrested.

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) whether the court erred in rejecting defense counsel's proposed addition to CALCRIM No. 315, "was the witness able to identify the defendant in a photographic or physical lineup?"; (2) whether the 2 court erred in denying Hill's request for a Marsden hearing (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118) just before the preliminary hearing; (3) as to count 3, whether the record contains substantial evidence that Hill committed a burglary; (4) whether the court abused its discretion in failing to bifurcate the hearing on Hill's 20-year-old robbery conviction; (5) whether Hill was in custody once he was detained so that his statements to the police should have been suppressed (Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436); (6)

whether, in light of Hill's April 2014 letter to the trial court requesting a new trial, the court should have held an evidentiary hearing on that request and a Marsden hearing before imposing judgment; (7) whether there was substantial evidence to support the findings that the prison priors were true; and (8) whether the court abused its discretion in denying Hill's motion to dismiss the strike.

We granted Hill permission to file a brief on his own behalf. Mail sent to Hill has been returned to this court2 and Hill has not filed a brief on his own behalf. 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. Hill has been competently represented by appellate counsel.

2 The order granting Hill permission to file a brief on his own behalf was first mailed to him in prison and was returned to this court by the United States Post Office. The order was then sent to an address furnished by Hill's appointed counsel and was returned to this court with the notation "unable to forward." 3 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

AARON, J.

WE CONCUR:

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

MCINTYRE, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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