People v. Lopez CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCS276402
- Trial judge
- Garry G. Haehnle
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Judith D. McConnell (author), Alex C. McDonald, Patricia D. Benke
Analysis
The trial court accepted Lopez's guilty plea to importing over one kilogram of methamphetamine and imposed a stipulated sentence of six years, later denying his request for a certificate of probable cause. On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after finding no reasonably arguable issues in the record.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of request for a certificate of probable cause“The court later denied his request for a certificate of probable cause.” | unclear | not reached | agree with court agree with court |
Stipulated sentence of six years“The trial court imposed a stipulated sentence of six years in jail.” | unclear | not reached | agree with court agree with court |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Appointed counsel must independently review the record for error when presenting no argument for reversal.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel must identify possible issues to aid the court's independent review.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the Wende/Anders framework for independent review when counsel files a no-merit brief. However, it contains a significant clerical error by referring to the appellant as 'Lazarus' instead of 'Lopez' in the conclusion.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual disposition unusual dispositionLopez pleaded guilty to importing more than one kilogram of methamphetamine, the trial court imposed the stipulated six-year jail sentence, and it later denied his request for a certificate of probable cause. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief, Lopez filed a supplemental brief asking only for less time, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issue, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Imposition of the stipulated six-year jail sentence in accordance with the plea bargain“The trial court imposed a stipulated sentence of six years in jail.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The opinion conducts the independent record review required by Wende rather than applying a conventional standard of review. The six-year term matches the middle term of three years under Health and Safety Code section 11379, subdivision (a), plus the three-year weight enhancement under section 11370.4, subdivision (b)(1), and was the stipulated term, so nothing in the opinion suggests a sentencing error. Lopez's supplemental brief raised only equitable pleas for leniency, which are not cognizable claims of trial court error and, absent a certificate of probable cause, could not be used to attack the stipulated sentence. |
Denial of the request for a certificate of probable cause, limiting the appeal to post-plea sentencing matters“His notice of appeal limits the issues on appeal to sentencing or other matters occurring after the plea that do not affect the plea's validity (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(4)).” | unclear | not reached | agree with court The opinion notes the denial of the certificate and the resulting limitation on the appeal's scope but does not review that denial as a distinct ruling; it simply confines the appeal to non-certificate issues under rule 8.304(b)(4). Nothing in the record described suggests the denial was improper, since Lopez's own brief raised no challenge to the plea. |
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 to lack merit may so advise the court, identifying anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
- missed: People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68 — A challenge to a sentence that was an agreed, stipulated term of the plea bargain is in substance an attack on the validity of the plea and requires a certificate of probable cause.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion correctly follows the Wende/Anders procedure, describes the supplemental brief's contents, and reaches the only defensible result given a stipulated sentence that matches the statutory terms and a supplemental brief raising no claim of error. It could have cited Panizzon to explain why Lopez's request for less time is not reviewable without a certificate of probable cause, and it contains a clerical slip referring to the appellant as 'Lazarus' rather than Lopez.
Opinion
Filed 8/20/15 P. v. Lopez 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, D067542
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCS276402)
DANIEL JIMENEZ LOPEZ,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Garry G.
Haehnle, Judge. Affirmed.
Anna M. Jauregui, under appointment by the Court of Appeal for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Respondent.
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
Daniel Jimenez Lopez pleaded guilty to importing over one kilogram of methamphetamine into California (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11379, subd. (a), 11370.4, subd. (b)(1)). As the factual basis for his plea, he acknowledged he "unlawfully imported into this state or offered to import into this state a controlled substance, that being methamphetamine, and its weight exceeded one kilogram." The trial court imposed a stipulated sentence of six years in jail. The court later denied his request for a certificate of probable cause.
DISCUSSION
Lopez appeals. His notice of appeal limits the issues on appeal to sentencing or other matters occurring after the plea that do not affect the plea's validity (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(4)).
Appointed appellate counsel filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. Counsel presented no argument for reversal and instead requested we independently review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441-442. To aid our review, counsel identified one possible issue (see Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, 744): whether the court correctly sentenced Lopez in accordance with the plea bargain.
We granted Lopez permission to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. He submitted a supplemental brief to appellate counsel, who submitted it to us after translating it and excising attorney-client privileged matters. The brief does not assert any trial court errors. Rather, it states Lopez is a family man with five children whom he misses, he has never been drunk and is not a drug addict, he has a consistent work history, he has never had problems with authorities in either Mexico or the United States, he has never previously been incarcerated, and he would like to serve less time.
2 After independently reviewing the record for error and considering the points in appellate counsel's and Lopez's briefs, we were unable to identify any reasonably arguable appellate issue and, therefore, affirm the judgment. Lazarus was competently represented in this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
MCCONNELL, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
BENKE, J.
MCDONALD, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12