People v. Delgado CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D066175 · 2015-04-29 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD234672, SCD239427
Trial judges: Timothy R. Walsh; Jeffrey S. Fraser
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Judith L. Haller (author), Richard D. Huffman, Sr., O'Rourke

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T06:18Z · confidence high

The trial court found the defendant mentally competent to stand trial and denied his motion to continue the preliminary hearing due to discovery issues. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, finding no error in the competency finding or the denial of the continuance.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Finding of mental competency to stand trial “the court considered it and found defendant competent to stand trial. On this record, there is no showing of error.”	unclear	not reached	agree with court The appellate court affirmed the trial court's competency finding, concluding that the defendant's conclusory assertions were insufficient to raise a prima facie showing of error and that the record showed the examination was stipulated to and unobjected to.
Denial of motion to continue preliminary hearing “There is no showing the court abused its discretion in denying defendant's request to continue the preliminary hearing based on discovery issues.”	abuse of discretion	not reached	agree with court The appellate court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the continuance because defense counsel indicated readiness to proceed and there was no indication that counsel's ability to represent the defendant was compromised by the discovery issues.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to review the record for error when no issues are raised.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to file a brief identifying any arguable issues or explaining why none exist.
relied: People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764 — Conclusory assertions are insufficient to raise a prima facie showing of error.
relied: People v. Jenkins (2000) 22 Cal.4th 900 — Standard for reviewing trial court decisions regarding discovery and continuances.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it follows the Wende/Anders protocol for reviewing a record where appointed counsel found no issues. It correctly applies the abuse of discretion standard to the continuance denial and the prima facie showing standard to the competency challenge.

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

The trial court accepted Delgado's negotiated guilty pleas to three residential burglaries with a strike prior and on-bail enhancement, found him competent under Penal Code section 1368 after receiving a stipulated expert's report, denied his request to continue the preliminary hearing over discovery complaints, and imposed the stipulated 16-year-four-month sentence. On a Wende appeal with a pro. per. supplemental brief, the Court of Appeal rejected the competency and discovery contentions and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Finding that defendant was mentally competent to stand trial and reinstatement of criminal proceedings under Penal Code section 1368 “Defendant's conclusory assertions are insufficient to raise even a prima facie showing of error.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The parties stipulated to the examiner's qualifications, the report came in without objection, and the court found competence on it; defendant offered nothing from the report or the record to undermine the finding, and his argument about mental state at the time of the offenses is a defense issue forfeited by the guilty plea rather than a competency issue. The court did not name a standard of review, but on this record the finding would survive under substantial evidence review.
Denial of defendant's motion to continue the preliminary hearing in case No. SCD243672 based on claimed inadequate discovery “There is no showing the court abused its discretion in denying defendant's request to continue the preliminary hearing based on discovery issues.”	abuse of discretion	correct	agree with court Defense counsel announced ready and apparently had the discovery; only defendant's personal redacted copy was lacking, and counsel's performance was effective enough that three counts were dismissed at the hearing. Abuse of discretion is the correct standard for continuance rulings, and no prejudice appears. The court did not note that this preplea claim would also be barred by the guilty plea absent a certificate of probable cause, but the omission does not affect the result.
Judgment of conviction and stipulated sentence entered on guilty pleas (independent Wende review) “A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738 has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The court performed the independent record review required by Wende and addressed the issues raised in the defendant's supplemental brief; the sentence matched the plea agreement. Nothing in the recited record suggests an arguable issue.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed 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 may so advise the court and identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
relied: People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764 — Conclusory assertions unsupported by argument or record citation are insufficient to establish error on appeal.
relied: People v. Jenkins (2000) 22 Cal.4th 900 — A trial court's denial of a continuance is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and the defendant must show prejudice.
missed: People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084 — Issues going to the validity of a guilty plea or preplea proceedings are not cognizable on appeal absent a certificate of probable cause under Penal Code section 1237.5, which is strictly applied.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court addressed both of the defendant's supplemental contentions with correct standards and authorities and conducted the required independent review, reaching a plainly defensible result. It did not mention that the discovery/preliminary-hearing complaint arising before the guilty plea would be barred without a certificate of probable cause, an alternative ground that would have strengthened the disposition.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 4/29/15 P. v. Delgado 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, D066175

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. Nos. SCD234672, SCD239427) ALBERT DELGADO, Defendant and Appellant.

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

Fraser and Timothy R. Walsh, Judges. Affirmed.

Steven J. Carroll, under appointment by the Court of Appeal; Albert Delgado, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In March 2012, Albert Delgado was charged in Case No. SCD239427 with two felonies, including a residential burglary. (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460.)1 The complaint also alleged several prior felony convictions, including a residential burglary conviction in 2009, which qualified as both a serious felony prior and a strike prior.

Following a preliminary hearing in April 2012, defendant was bound over, arraigned and released on bail.

In October 2012, defendant was arrested for three residential burglaries and four theft-related crimes resulting in the filing of a new case (SCD243672). Following a preliminary hearing and a motion to dismiss hearing pursuant to section 995, defendant was ultimately charged in January 2013 in an amended information with two counts of residential burglary and other felonies, plus several prior felony convictions, including the 2009 residential burglary conviction referenced above. Appellant was also charged with committing these offenses while released from custody on bail. (§ 12022.1, subd.

(b).)

The parties reached a plea agreement resolving both cases and on July 11, 2013, defendant entered his pleas. In case No. SCD239427, he pled guilty to residential burglary, admitted the 2009 prior strike conviction, and agreed to a 32-month sentence (one-third the middle term of four years, doubled). In case No. SCD243672, he pled guilty to two residential burglaries; admitted the 2009 prior serious felony and strike 1 Subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 conviction; and admitted he committed the current burglaries while released from custody on bail. Defendant agreed to a 13-year eight-month sentence, to run consecutive to case No. SCD239427.

On January 27, 2014, the court suspended the proceedings in both cases pursuant to section 1368 and ordered a mental competency examination. On March 12, the parties stipulated that Dr. David Naimark was qualified to render an opinion as to defendant's mental competency and the court received Dr. Naimark's report into evidence. The court found defendant was mentally competent to stand trial and reinstated criminal proceedings. On May 28, the court imposed the stipulated sentence in each case for a total term of 16 years four months.

Case No. SCD239427 On February 9, 2012, the resident of a home in the Mission Hills area of San Diego heard a strange noise at the rear of his house. Upon investigation, he noted the screen on his window had been removed and defendant was attempting to open the window. In response to the victim inquiring whether defendant was trying to break in, defendant said that if he was not careful, people like him could easily come in and take his things. The victim called the police. As police approached the area, they observed defendant running down a flight of stairs and into a vehicle. Defendant ignored the officers' efforts to pull him over and a lengthy chase ensued with defendant crossing into Mexico without being apprehended. Defendant was arrested about two weeks later at his parole agent's office.

3 Case No. SCD243672 In July 12, 2012, two homes in Alpine were burglarized. Defendant's home was .14 miles from one of the homes and .37 miles from the other home.

Victim Kleist left her home around 9:45 a.m. that morning and when she returned a little after 11:00 a.m., she noticed a sliding glass door was open, her closet doors were open, and items were strewn all over her bedroom. Upon further inspection, she discovered several items were missing, including a gun, an iPod and a digital camera.

She also saw an empty water bottle inside the house near the front door. Defendant's DNA matched the DNA on the water bottle. Items belonging to the victim were found in defendant's home.

Victim Cross left her home around 7:30 a.m., and when she returned around 11:30 a.m. she found her sliding glass door had been pried open and her front door was unlocked. Upon further inspection, she discovered several items were missing, including a shotgun and jewelry. Items belonging to the victim were found in defendant's home.

DISCUSSION

Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief setting forth the proceedings before the superior court. Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks that this court review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.

Likewise, counsel has reviewed the record but has not identified any possible, but not arguable issues, as permitted by Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738.

4 We granted defendant permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has responded and raised two issues. We have reviewed these alleged errors and find they have no merit.

Defendant focuses on what he describes as his "ongoing mental health issues." He maintains the 2014 competency examination was inadequate, incomplete, and biased, and failed to take into account his mental health at the time of the crimes. Defendant does not include a copy of Dr. Naimark's report; he does not refer to information contained in the report; and he provides no evidence that at the time of the crimes in 2012 his mental health was such that it rose to the level of a viable defense. Defendant's conclusory assertions are insufficient to raise even a prima facie showing of error. (See People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 793.) Moreover, the record reflects the prosecutor and defense counsel stipulated that the doctor who performed the competency examination was qualified to do so; the doctor's report was received into evidence without objection;

and the court considered it and found defendant competent to stand trial. On this record, there is no showing of error.

Defendant also contends neither he nor his attorney were provided with "a full or even a partial discovery." Defendant correctly notes that on the date set for his preliminary hearing in SDC243672, he complained that he had not been provided with discovery and requested a continuance. Defense counsel informed the court he was ready to proceed and indicated defendant might request to represent himself if the matter was not continued. Although the transcript is not entirely clear, it appears defense counsel had received sufficient discovery to proceed with the preliminary hearing, but that 5 defendant had not received a redacted copy of the discovery. The court denied the motion to continue the preliminary hearing and defendant did not indicate he wished to represent himself. There is no indication that counsel's ability to competently represent defendant at the preliminary hearing was in any way compromised by any purported inadequacy in the discovery process. In fact, at the conclusion of the preliminary hearing, the magistrate dismissed three counts. There is no showing the court abused its discretion in denying defendant's request to continue the preliminary hearing based on discovery issues. (See People v. Jenkins (2000) 22 Cal.4th 900, 1037.)

A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738 has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Competent counsel has represented Delgado on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

HALLER, J.

WE CONCUR:

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

O'ROURKE, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Jenkins S007522 · 2000-06-28
People v. Stanley S004605. Crim. No. 23532 · 1995-07-06
People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12