People v. Ibrahim CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D067002 · 2015-07-21 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD235716
Trial judge: Amalia L. Meza
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Judith D. McConnell, Patricia D. Benke

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T06:12Z · confidence low

The trial court resentenced the defendant to 16 years in prison after finding insufficient evidence for two prior convictions on remand, selecting the upper term for the assault count. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record pursuant to Wende and Anders, finding no reasonably arguable issues for reversal.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Selection of the upper term for the assault count “Whether the trial court abused its discretion in selecting the upper term for the assault count?”	abuse of discretion	not reached	unsure The appellate court identified this as a possible issue but determined it was not reasonably arguable for reversal. The court conducted an independent review of the entire record pursuant to Wende and Anders and concluded that no reasonably arguable issues for reversal existed, thereby affirming the judgment without explicitly analyzing the merits of the upper term selection in the text provided.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to identify reasonably arguable issues and, if none exist, to request the court to conduct an independent review of the record.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to file a brief identifying possible but not reasonably arguable issues and requesting independent review by the court.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the Wende/Anders framework for reviewing appeals where counsel finds no arguable issues. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' analysis because it fails to provide any specific reasoning or factual basis for why the identified issue regarding the upper term selection was not reasonably arguable, relying solely on the conclusion of the independent review.

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

On remand after a prior appeal, the trial court found insufficient evidence for one strike prior and one serious felony prior and resentenced Ibrahim to 16 years, including the upper term of four years (doubled) for assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury, plus a five-year serious felony enhancement and a three-year great bodily injury enhancement, with the battery count stayed under section 654. Appellate counsel filed a Wende brief, Ibrahim filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no reasonably arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Selection of the upper term of four years for the assault count (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)) at resentencing “Whether the trial court abused its discretion in selecting the upper term for the assault count?”	abuse of discretion	correct	agree with court The only issue identified under Anders was whether selecting the upper term was an abuse of discretion. The opinion recites no sentencing reasons, but a defendant with a strike prior, a serious felony prior, and a victim who was seriously injured by repeated closed-fist punches presents aggravating circumstances that would ordinarily support an upper term, and the court independently reviewed the record and found no arguable error. On this limited record there is no identifiable legal error, but the opinion does not disclose the trial court's stated reasons, so I cannot fully verify the conclusion.
Resentencing to an aggregate 16-year term after striking one strike prior and one serious felony prior for insufficient evidence, with the battery count stayed under section 654 “On remand the trial court found insufficient evidence to support one of the strike priors and one of the serious felony priors. Ibrahim was resentenced to a total term of 16 years in prison”	unclear	correct	agree with court The sentence structure described (upper term doubled under the Three Strikes law, one five-year section 667(a)(1) enhancement, one three-year section 12022.7(a) enhancement, battery stayed under section 654) is consistent with the governing statutes on its face. The appellate court's Wende review found no arguable issue, and nothing in the opinion suggests the components were unlawfully computed.

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 arguable error before affirming.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal wholly 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 with gaps — The opinion correctly follows the Wende/Anders procedure: counsel identified a possible issue, the defendant was given an opportunity to file a supplemental brief and did not, and the court independently reviewed the record and found no arguable issue. The opinion is very brief and does not explain the trial court's reasons for the upper term or analyze the resentencing components, which is typical for Wende dispositions but leaves the substantive reasoning unstated; the opinion also contains a minor citation inconsistency (Anders cited as 386 U.S. 728 in one place).

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 7/21/15 P. v. Ibrahim 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, D067002

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD235716)

HUSSEIN A. IBRAHIM, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Amalia L.

Meza, Judge. Affirmed.

Gary V. Crooks, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

In 2012, a jury convicted Hussein A. Ibrahim of assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury (Pen. Code,1 § 245, subd. (a)(1)) and battery with serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d)). The jury also found true an allegation that Ibrahim inflicted 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. great bodily injury on the victim (§ 12022,7, subd. (a)). Ibrahim admitted two serious felony prior convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)) and two strike convictions (§ 667, subds.

(b)-(i)). Ibrahim was originally sentenced to 25 years to life plus 13 years.

Ibrahim appealed the original judgment. In an unpublished opinion, this court affirmed the convictions but remanded for resentencing. (People v. Ibrahim (Jan. 10, 2014, D062647).)

On remand the trial court found insufficient evidence to support one of the strike priors and one of the serious felony priors. Ibrahim was resentenced to a total term of 16 years in prison, consisting of the upper term of four years for the assault count, doubled to eight years based on the strike prior. The sentence on the battery count was stayed.

(Pen. Code, § 654.) The court imposed five years for the serious felony prior and three years for the great bodily injury enhancement.

Ibrahim filed a timely notice of appeal, Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), indicating he has not been able 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 Ibrahim the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal.

Ibrahim requested and was granted additional time to file his brief, but ultimately he did not respond.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

A witness testified that he saw Ibrahim arguing with the victim on the night of the offense, and the witness tried to break up the argument. The witness testified that he later 2 saw Ibrahim straddling the victim and punching him in the face with a closed fist. The witness called 9-1-1 and when police arrived took them to the victim who was seriously injured. Ibrahim made statements to police that he had been arguing with the victim and was trying to protect himself.

DISCUSSION

As we have noted, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, asking this court to review the record for error. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified the following possible, but not reasonably arguable issue for our consideration:

Whether the trial court abused its discretion in selecting the upper term for the assault count?

We have reviewed the entire record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 728, and have not discovered any reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Ibrahim on this appeal.

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