People v. Kueny CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D066402 · 2015-05-21 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD240930
Trial judge: Eugenia A. Eyherabide
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Patricia D. Benke (author), Judith D. McConnell, McINTYRE

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T06:16Z · confidence low

The trial court revoked the defendant's probation and imposed a midterm sentence of four years after she failed to comply with probation terms. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record found no reasonably arguable appellate issues.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Revocation of probation and imposition of a midterm sentence of four years “In light of these circumstances, on June 27, 2014, the trial court revoked Kueny's probation and thereafter imposed a midterm sentence of four years.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The opinion is a Wende/Anders review where appointed counsel presented no argument for reversal. The court states it independently reviewed the record and found 'no reasonably arguable appellate issue.' Therefore, the court did not apply a specific standard of review to the trial court's sentencing decision, nor did it explicitly rule on the correctness of the trial court's application of the law to the facts, but rather affirmed based on the absence of arguable error.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to file a brief inviting the court to review the record for error if no arguable issues are found.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires independent review of the record by the appellate court when counsel files a Wende brief.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it follows the required Wende/Anders protocol for cases where no arguable issues are identified. However, it provides no substantive legal analysis or reasoning regarding the trial court's sentencing decision, relying solely on the negative finding of error.

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

After a jury convicted Tiffany Kueny of inflicting corporal injury on a cohabitant (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)) with a prior domestic violence conviction found true, the trial court granted probation, later reinstated it with a 365-day jail term, and ultimately revoked probation on June 27, 2014, imposing a four-year midterm sentence with 422 days of actual credit, no conduct credit, and restitution-related fines. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief, Kueny 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
Revocation of probation based on Kueny's failure to report, positive methamphetamine test, missed substance abuse testing, and failure to attend domestic abuse classes “In light of these circumstances, on June 27, 2014, the trial court revoked Kueny's probation and thereafter imposed a midterm sentence of four years.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The opinion is a Wende review and does not analyze the revocation on its merits; it simply recites multiple documented violations and finds no arguable issue. On the facts recited, revocation for repeated noncompliance is well within the trial court's broad discretion, and nothing in the opinion suggests a procedural defect.
Imposition of the four-year middle term under section 273.5, subdivision (e)(1), after revocation of probation “imposed a midterm sentence of four years”	unclear	correct	agree with court Section 273.5, subdivision (e)(1) provides a triad of two, four, or five years when the defendant has a qualifying prior; four years is the middle term and requires no statement of aggravating factors. The jury found the prior allegation true, so the sentence is lawful on the face of the opinion.
Award of 422 days of actual custody credit and no conduct credit “The trial court awarded Kueny 422 days of actual credits and no conduct credits.”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion does not explain why no conduct credit was awarded for the 422 days of presentence and probationary jail custody. Under section 4019 a defendant ordinarily earns conduct credit on local custody later credited against a prison term, so the absence of any conduct credit is unexplained; however, the opinion does not supply the record detail (e.g., whether credits were waived or whether the 422 days reflect combined actual and conduct days) needed to say an error occurred.
Imposition of a $240 restitution fine, a $240 probation revocation fine, and a stayed additional $40 fine “The trial court also imposed a restitution fine of $240, a probation revocation fine of $240 and an additional restitution fine of $40, which was stayed.”	unclear	correct	unsure The $240 restitution fine was the statutory minimum for a 2012 offense and the probation revocation fine under section 1202.44 properly matches it. The stayed $40 fine is unexplained; if it was a parole revocation fine under section 1202.45 it should equal the restitution fine, but the opinion gives too little detail to identify an error.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel files a brief raising no issues, the Court of Appeal must independently review the entire record for arguable issues and may affirm if none is found.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous must so advise the court and the court must conduct its own examination of the record before deciding whether the appeal is frivolous.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the Wende/Anders procedure, recites the procedural history and sentence, and affirms after independent review, which is a defensible result on the facts described. It does not explain the absence of conduct credits on 422 days of local custody or the nature of the stayed $40 fine, points a fuller opinion might have addressed.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 5/21/15 P. v. Kueny 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, D066402

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD240930)

TIFFANY KUENY,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Eugenia A.

Eyherabide, Judge. Affirmed.

Jared G. Coleman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In this criminal case, appointed appellate counsel filed a brief presenting no argument for reversal but inviting this court to review the record for error in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We gave defendant and appellant Tiffany Kueny an opportunity to file a brief on her own behalf, and she has declined to do so. After having independently reviewed the entire record for error, as required by Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) and Wende, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A jury found Kueny guilty of one count of inflicting corporal injury on a cohabitant in violation of Penal Code1 section 273.5, subdivision (a). The jury also found true an allegation Kueny had previously been convicted of domestic violence within the meaning of section 273.5, subdivision (e)(1).

The trial court initially imposed three years of formal probation. However, Kueny did not perform satisfactorily on probation. On May 8, 2013, Kueny admitted she had failed to report to her probation officer; at that point, the trial court reinstated her probation but ordered that she be held in custody for 365 days, less 177 actual days of credit.

Upon Kueny's release from custody, she again failed to promptly report to her probation officer, tested positive for methamphetamine, failed to appear for substance abuse testing, and failed to attend domestic abuse classes. In light of these circumstances, on June 27, 2014, the trial court revoked Kueny's probation and thereafter imposed a midterm sentence of four years. The trial court awarded Kueny 422 days of actual credits and no conduct credits. The trial court also imposed a restitution fine of $240, a probation revocation fine of $240 and an additional restitution fine of $40, which was stayed.

A review of the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders, 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 supra, 386 U.S. 738 has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Kueny has been represented by competent counsel on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

BENKE, J.

WE CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

McINTYRE, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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