P.v. Chavez CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D066866 · 2015-04-21 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCE341796
Trial judge: Evan P. Kirvin
Outcome: modified — Affirmed as modified with directions.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Judith L. Haller, McINTYRE

Analysis

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

The trial court convicted Michael Chavez of first-degree burglary and sentenced him to 14 years in prison, including a five-year serious felony prior enhancement. The appellate court affirmed the judgment but modified it by directing the trial court to amend the abstract of judgment to correctly cite the statutory basis for the enhancement.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of motion to replace appointed counsel “Whether the court abused its discretion when it denied Chavez's motion to replace appointed counsel pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118?”	abuse of discretion	not reached	unsure The appellate court identified this as a possible issue raised by appointed counsel but did not analyze it or provide a ruling, stating only that no reasonably arguable issue for reversal was found after independent review.
Imposition of 14-year prison term “Whether the court abused its discretion in imposing a 14-year prison term?”	abuse of discretion	not reached	unsure The appellate court listed this as a possible issue but did not provide specific reasoning or a ruling on the sentence's validity, relying instead on its general finding that no reasonably arguable issues existed.
Citation of statutory basis for five-year enhancement “The abstract of judgment erroneously reflects the five-year enhancement was imposed pursuant to section 667.5, subdivision (b). We will direct the trial court to amend the abstract of judgment to show that the five-year enhancement was imposed under section 667, subdivision (a)(1).”	unclear	error	agree with court The court found the abstract of judgment contained a clerical error regarding the statutory citation for the enhancement and ordered it corrected to reflect the correct statute (Pen. Code, § 667, subd. (a)(1)).

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to review the record for error when no issues are identified, and requires the court to conduct an independent review.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to file a brief identifying possible but not reasonably arguable issues to assist the court's independent review.
relied: People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 — Sets the standard for evaluating a defendant's motion to replace appointed counsel.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound in following Wende and Anders protocols for independent review. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' opinion because it fails to provide any specific reasoning or analysis for the two issues identified by counsel, relying solely on a blanket statement that no reasonably arguable issues were found.

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 Michael Chavez of first degree burglary of a Travelodge room, he admitted a serious felony prior, a strike prior and five prison priors, and the trial court sentenced him to 14 years (middle term doubled, plus five years under section 667(a)(1) and one year for a prison prior), striking the remaining prison priors. On a Wende appeal with no supplemental brief from Chavez, the Court of Appeal found no reasonably arguable issue, but directed the trial court to correct the abstract of judgment to show the five-year enhancement was imposed under section 667, subdivision (a)(1) rather than section 667.5, subdivision (b), and otherwise affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of Chavez's Marsden motion to replace appointed counsel “Whether the court abused its discretion when it denied Chavez's motion to replace appointed counsel pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118?”	abuse of discretion	correct	agree with court The opinion identifies this only as an Anders issue flagged by counsel and states, after independent review of the record, that no reasonably arguable issue exists. The opinion recites no facts about the Marsden hearing, so the reader cannot independently verify the ruling, but nothing in the opinion suggests error and the court applied the correct deferential standard.
Imposition of a 14-year prison term (middle term doubled under the Three Strikes law, plus five-year serious felony enhancement and one-year prison prior) “Whether the court abused its discretion in imposing a 14-year prison term?”	abuse of discretion	correct	agree with court The sentence components described (middle term of four years for first degree burglary doubled by the strike, five years under section 667(a)(1), one year under section 667.5(b), with remaining prison priors stricken) are consistent with the statutes cited, and the court selected the middle rather than upper term. The court found no arguable abuse of discretion after reviewing the record, and nothing in the opinion indicates otherwise.
Abstract of judgment listing the five-year enhancement under section 667.5, subdivision (b) instead of section 667, subdivision (a)(1) “The abstract of judgment erroneously reflects the five-year enhancement was imposed pursuant to section 667.5, subdivision (b).”	unclear	error (other)	agree with court A five-year enhancement cannot arise under section 667.5(b), which carries a one-year term; Chavez admitted a section 667(a)(1) prior and the court imposed five years for it, so the abstract contained a clerical error. Appellate courts may order correction of such clerical errors so the abstract conforms to the oral pronouncement, and the modification is proper, though the court cited no authority for its power to do so.

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 no meritorious issues may file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, to aid the court's independent review.
relied: People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 — A defendant seeking substitution of appointed counsel must be permitted to state reasons; denial is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
missed: People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181 — Appellate courts may order correction of clerical errors in abstracts of judgment so they conform to the oral pronouncement of judgment; this authority would have supported the court's correction of the abstract but was not cited.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the Wende/Anders procedure, recites the facts and procedural history, notes the defendant was invited to file a supplemental brief, and properly catches and corrects a clerical error in the abstract of judgment. It does not explain why the two Anders issues are not arguable and cites no authority for correcting the abstract, which leaves small gaps in an otherwise defensible result.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 4/21/15 P.v. Chavez 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, D066866

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCE341796)

MICHAEL CHAVEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Evan P.

Kirvin, Judge. Affirmed as modified with directions.

John F. Schuck, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

A jury convicted Michael Chavez of one count of first degree burglary (Pen.

Code,1 §§ 459/460). Chavez admitted one serious felony prior conviction (§ 667, subd.

(a)(1)), one strike prior (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)) and five prison prior convictions (§ 667.5, 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. subd. (b)). The court sentenced Chavez to a total term of 14 years in prison, consisting of eight years (the middle term doubled), plus five years for the serious felony prior 2 and one year for a prison prior. The court struck the remaining prison priors.

Chavez filed a timely notice of appeal.

Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), indicating he has been unable to identify any reasonably arguable issue for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Chavez the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal but he has not responded.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

This case arises from a burglary of room 215 at the Travelodge in El Cajon on June 28, 2014. At that time Chavez was registered as a guest in room 208 of the Travelodge.

Room 215 was occupied by Braulio Ponce and his coworker Samuel. At around 9:00 p.m., Ponce went to bed. However, he left the door ajar because Samuel was out of the room. At around 11:00 p.m., Ponce woke up when Samuel returned to the room.

Ponce discovered that his wallet and other items, including Samuel's suitcase, had been taken.

2 The abstract of judgment erroneously reflects the five-year enhancement was imposed pursuant to section 667.5, subdivision (b). We will direct the trial court to amend the abstract of judgment to show that the five-year enhancement was imposed under section 667, subdivision (a)(1). 2 Review of the surveillance video at the Travelodge showed Chavez, wearing the same orange t-shirt and blue jeans as he did when he checked into the hotel earlier in the day. He was seen entering room 215 empty handed and emerging a short time later with various items, including Samuel's suitcase.

Police arrested Chavez in his room, where they found the orange t-shirt he was wearing when he registered and when he was observed on the video.

DISCUSSION

As we have noted, counsel has not identified any reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified the following possible, but not reasonably arguable, issues to assist this court in its mandated review of the record:

1. Whether the court abused its discretion when it denied Chavez's motion to replace appointed counsel pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118?

2. Whether the court abused its discretion in imposing a 14-year prison term?

We have reviewed the entire record as mandated by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, and have not discovered any reasonably arguable issue for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Chavez on this appeal.

3 DISPOSITION

The trial court is directed to amend the abstract of judgment to reflect that the five- year enhancement was imposed under section 667, subdivision (a)(1) and forward an amended abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. In all other respects the judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

HALLER, J.

McINTYRE, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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