People v. Jefferson CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD251266
- Trial judge
- Timothy R. Walsh
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Judith D. McConnell, Patricia D. Benke
Analysis
The trial court accepted a guilty plea to receiving a stolen vehicle and imposed a stipulated four-year sentence. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record found no reasonably arguable issues for reversal.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Affirmance of judgment following guilty plea and stipulated sentence“We have reviewed the entire record as mandated by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders. We have not discovered any reasonably arguable issue for reversal on appeal.” | de novo | not reached | agree with court The court affirmed the judgment based on its independent review of the record under the Wende/Anders procedure, finding no error. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appellate counsel to file a brief identifying issues and the court to conduct an independent review of the record when no issues are identified.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires counsel to file a brief identifying any possible, but not arguable, issues and the court to conduct an independent review of the record.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly applies the Wende/Anders procedure by conducting an independent review of the record and affirming the judgment when no issues are found. The reasoning is concise and directly addresses the procedural posture of the appeal.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court accepted Dominick Jefferson's guilty plea to receiving a stolen vehicle (Pen. Code, § 496d) with an admitted prison prior and imposed the stipulated four-year sentence (three years plus one year for the prior) to run concurrently with another case. On appeal, counsel filed a Wende brief, Jefferson filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issue, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Acceptance of guilty plea and admission of prison prior, and imposition of stipulated four-year sentence (three years for § 496d plus one year for § 667.5, subd. (b) enhancement), concurrent with another case“The court sentenced Jefferson to three years for the receiving count and one year for the prison prior, for a total of four years.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The court conducted an independent Wende/Anders review of the entire record and found no arguable issue. The sentence described matches the stipulated term and the statutory ranges (§ 496d upper term of three years, one-year § 667.5(b) enhancement). Nothing in the opinion suggests error, and a certificate of probable cause was obtained, so plea-validity issues were reviewable but none were found. |
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 should file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, and the court must then conduct its own examination of the record.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly applies the Wende/Anders procedure: it notes counsel's no-issue brief, the defendant's failure to file a supplemental brief, and the court's independent review of the full record before affirming. It does not cite People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, which describes the contents of a Wende opinion, but the brief procedural description here is adequate for a stipulated-sentence plea appeal and the result is plainly defensible.
Opinion
Filed 4/21/15 P. v. Jefferson 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, D066974
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD251266)
DOMINICK JEFFERSON,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Timothy R. Walsh, Judge. Affirmed.
John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
As part of a plea agreement Dominick Jefferson entered a guilty plea to one count of receiving a stolen vehicle (Pen. Code,1 § 496d). Jefferson also admitted a prison prior 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The parties also stipulated that Jefferson would receive a sentence of four years for the conviction to be served concurrently with another case.
The court sentenced Jefferson to three years for the receiving count and one year for the prison prior, for a total of four years.
Jefferson filed a timely notice of appeal and obtained a certificate of probable cause (§ 1237.5).
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 Jefferson the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, however he has not responded.
Since this appeal is from a guilty plea and a stipulated sentence, we will not set forth the traditional statement of facts.
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, appellate counsel has not identified any reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel has not identified any possible, but not arguable issues as is ordinarily required by Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738. However, we have reviewed the entire record as mandated by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders. We have not discovered any reasonably arguable issue for reversal on appeal.
Competent counsel has represented Jefferson on this appeal.
2 DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
BENKE, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12