People v. Bell CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D066925 · 2015-05-22 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD228523
Trial judge: Kenneth K. So
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Alex C. McDonald, Judith D. McConnell

Analysis

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

The trial court accepted a plea of guilty to voluntary manslaughter with stipulated enhancements and sentenced the defendant to 18 years in prison. The appellate court affirmed the judgment after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, finding no reasonably arguable issues for reversal.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Affirmance of the judgment following a Wende review “We have reviewed the entire record and have not identified any reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal.”	de novo	correct	agree with court agree with court

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to conduct an independent review of the record to identify any reasonably arguable issues when no certificate of probable cause is obtained.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to file a brief identifying potential issues while arguing they are frivolous, allowing the court to review the record.
relied: In re Rojas (1979) 23 Cal.3d 152 — Governs the calculation and award of custody credits for time served in custody prior to sentencing.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly applies the Wende/Anders framework by stating that counsel identified potential issues and the court conducted an independent review of the entire record. The conclusion that no reasonably arguable issues exist is supported by the stipulated nature of the plea and the lack of specific legal errors identified in the brief.

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 Bell's guilty plea to voluntary manslaughter with admissions of a strike prior, a serious felony prior, and a prison prior, and imposed the stipulated 18-year sentence along with a $10,000 restitution fine and custody credits. On appeal without a certificate of probable cause, appellate counsel filed a Wende brief, Bell filed nothing, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Imposition of the 18-year stipulated sentence and judgment on the guilty plea (overall Wende review of the record) “We have reviewed the entire record and have not identified any reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The sentence matches the plea bargain: the midterm of six years for voluntary manslaughter doubled by the strike (12), plus five years under section 667(a)(1) and one year under section 667.5(b), totals 18 years. Without a certificate of probable cause, challenges to the plea's validity are barred under section 1237.5, and the court correctly conducted the independent review Wende and Anders require. Nothing in the opinion suggests error.
Denial of Bell's request for a restitution fine lower than the $10,000 imposed “Whether the court abused its discretion in denying Bell's request for a lesser restitution fine than the $10,000 fine imposed by the court?”	abuse of discretion	correct	agree with court A $10,000 restitution fine is the statutory maximum under section 1202.4(b) and within the trial court's discretion for a homicide offense; the opinion gives no facts (such as a plea term capping the fine) suggesting abuse. The appellate court did not discuss the point beyond listing it, so I cannot fully verify, but the result is consistent with the law.
Award of presentence custody credits under In re Rojas “Whether the court properly awarded custody credits pursuant to In re Rojas (1979) 23 Cal.3d 152?”	unclear	correct	unsure Rojas holds a defendant is not entitled to credit for custody time attributable to a separate sentence he was already serving. The opinion gives no credit figures or custody history, so the correctness of the award cannot be independently checked from the opinion; the reviewing court's silence after full record review is the only basis for assessment.
Application of prior-conviction enhancements (described in the opinion as section 667.5, subdivisions (a) and (b)) “Whether the court properly applied enhancements under section 667.5, subdivisions (a) and (b))?”	unclear	correct	unsure The admitted enhancements recited earlier in the opinion are section 667(a)(1) and section 667.5(b), not section 667.5(a), so the Anders issue appears to contain a citation slip. The five-year serious felony enhancement and one-year prison prior fit the 18-year total, and a prison prior and a serious felony prior based on the same conviction may both be imposed only in limited circumstances, which the opinion does not address; the court reviewed the record and found no issue, and nothing in the opinion shows otherwise.

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 — Counsel who finds no merit may file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal to aid the court's review.
relied: In re Rojas (1979) 23 Cal.3d 152 — A defendant is not entitled to presentence custody credit for time attributable to a separate sentence already being served.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the Wende/Anders procedure, identifies the possible issues counsel flagged, and affirms after independent record review, which is all the law requires in this posture. It does not explain why any of the three flagged issues lacks merit and misdescribes the enhancement statute in the third issue, leaving small gaps a reader cannot fill from the opinion alone.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 5/22/15 P. v. Bell 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, D066925

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD228523)

TERRILL ANTHONY BELL,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Kenneth K. So, Judge. Affirmed.

Lindsay M. Ball, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

As part of a plea agreement, Terrill Anthony Bell entered a guilty plea to one count of voluntary manslaughter (Pen. Code,1 § 192, subd. (a)). Bell also admitted one strike prior conviction (§ 667, subd. (b)-(i)), one serious felony prior conviction (§ 667, 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. subd. (a)(1)) and one prison prior conviction (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The parties stipulated that Bell would receive a sentence of 18 years in prison. Bell was sentenced to an 18- year term pursuant to the plea agreement.

Bell filed a timely notice of appeal, however he did not obtain 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 counsel has been unable to identify any reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Bell the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The parties stipulated that the transcript of the preliminary hearing established the factual basis for the plea. The transcript reflects that on September 16, 2004, Bell was driving a vehicle. At that time he fired a gunshot at the victim's car. The shot hit and killed the victim.

DISCUSSION

As we have indicated, counsel has asked this court to review the record for error pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified the following possible, but not arguable issues to assist this court's review of the record:

1. Whether the court abused its discretion in denying Bell's request for a lesser restitution fine than the $10,000 fine imposed by the court?

2 2. Whether the court properly awarded custody credits pursuant to In re Rojas (1979) 23 Cal.3d 152?

3. Whether the court properly applied enhancements under section 667.5, subdivisions (a) and (b))?

We have reviewed the entire record and have not identified any reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Bell on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

McDONALD, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12
In Re Rojas Crim. 20595 · 1979-01-12