People v. Lavoie CA

California Court of Appeal · D066665 · 2015-06-05 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCN330439
Trial judges: Carlos O. Armour; Richard Monroy
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Alex C. McDonald (author), O'Rourke, McINTYRE

Analysis

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:31Z · confidence low

The trial court denied Lavoie's Penal Code section 1538.5 motion to suppress, after which he pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine and was granted formal probation with imposition of sentence suspended for three years. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief raising no argument, Lavoie filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of Penal Code section 1538.5 motion to suppress “Counsel identifies as a possible issue whether the motion to suppress should have been granted, but presents no argument for reversal as to this claim.”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion recites no facts about the search or the basis for the suppression ruling and states only that independent Wende review disclosed no reasonably arguable issue. Without any record facts in the opinion, I cannot independently evaluate whether the suppression ruling was correct.
Judgment of conviction on guilty plea and grant of formal probation with suspended imposition of sentence “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 followed the Wende procedure: counsel filed a no-issue brief, the defendant was given an opportunity to file a supplemental brief and did not, and the court conducted an independent record review before affirming. The procedure described conforms to Wende and Anders, and nothing in the opinion suggests error.

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 before affirming.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal frivolous may so advise the court and request to withdraw, accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly applies the Wende/Anders framework, confirms the defendant was given an opportunity to file a supplemental brief, and affirms after independent review. It is a brief procedural disposition that recites no facts about the suppression ruling, so its soundness cannot be independently verified from the text, but nothing in it indicates error.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 6/5/15 P. v. Lavoie CA 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, D066665

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN330439)

STEVEN E. LAVOIE, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Carlos O.

Armour and Richard Monroy, Judges. Affirmed.

Richard Power, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Steven Lavoie was charged with possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf.

Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) and unlawfully driving a motor vehicle without a license (Veh.

Code, § 12500, subd. (a)), with the allegation he had numerous "probation denial" prior convictions. After his Penal Code section 1538.5 motion to suppress was denied, he entered into a plea bargain pursuant to which Lavoie pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine with the further agreement the other charges and allegations would be dismissed. The court granted Lavoie formal probations, with imposition of sentence suspended for three years, and the court imposed various terms, conditions and fines.

Lavoie filed a notice of appeal. We affirm the judgment.

FACTS

Lavoie admitted that, on March 29, 2014, he unlawfully possessed methamphetamine in a usable amount.

DISCUSSION

Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738. Counsel identifies as a possible issue whether the motion to suppress should have been granted, but presents no argument for reversal as to this claim.

We granted Lavoie permission to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf, but he has not responded. 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. Lavoie has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.

2 DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

McDONALD, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

McINTYRE, J.

O'ROURKE, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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