People v. Manning CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD239475
- Trial judge
- Eugenia Eyherabide
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Alex C. McDonald (author), O'Rourke, Joan K. Irion
Analysis
The trial court accepted a plea bargain in which the defendant pleaded guilty to stalking with a court order in effect, admitted a prior strike, and was sentenced to six years in prison with a 10-year protective order. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after a Wende/Anders review found no reasonably arguable issues on appeal.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Affirmance of the judgment following a Wende/Anders review“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.” | de novo | not reached | agree with court The court applied the standard Wende/Anders procedure, reviewing the record for any error when appointed counsel found no arguable issues. The court concluded that the record contained no reasonably arguable issues, specifically noting that the defendant's supplemental brief did not identify any cognizable issues on appeal from a guilty plea. This is a standard procedural disposition for cases where no specific legal error is identified by the appellant or counsel. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to review the record for error if they find no arguable issues, and the court must independently review the record.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel who find no arguable issues, requiring a brief identifying potential issues and a court review of the record.
- relied: People v. Hunter (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 37 — Issues raised in a supplemental brief must be cognizable on appeal from a guilty plea to be considered.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the Wende/Anders framework. It accurately notes that the defendant's supplemental brief failed to raise cognizable issues on appeal from a guilty plea, justifying the affirmance based on the court's independent review of the record.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionFollowing a plea bargain, the trial court sentenced Manning to a stipulated six years in prison for stalking with a court order in effect (Pen. Code, § 646.9, subd. (b)) with an admitted strike, awarded 702 days of credits, imposed fines and fees including a $1,440 restitution fine, and entered a 10-year protective order. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief, Manning filed a supplemental brief raising no issue cognizable after a guilty plea, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Imposition of a $1,440 restitution fine under Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (b), following the negotiated plea and six-year stipulated sentence“whether the trial court erred in ordering the restitution fine under section 1202.4, subdivision (b), in the amount of $1440” | unclear | correct | unsure Counsel flagged the fine only as a possible, not arguable, issue, and the court's Wende review found nothing arguable. The opinion gives no detail about how the fine was computed or whether it was within the plea agreement, so the result cannot be independently verified from the opinion, but nothing in the record quoted suggests error. |
Entry of a 10-year criminal protective order as part of the judgment“whether the trial court erred in the protective order it imposed” | unclear | correct | agree with court Section 646.9, subdivision (k) authorizes a protective order of up to 10 years upon a stalking conviction, so a 10-year order is facially within the court's authority. The opinion does not discuss the statutory basis, but the conclusion that the issue is not arguable is consistent with the governing statute. |
Rejection of the issues raised in defendant's pro per supplemental brief as not cognizable on appeal from a guilty plea“his response identified no issue that is cognizable on appeal from a guilty plea. (See, e.g., People v. Hunter (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 37, 41- 42.)” | de novo | correct | unsure A guilty plea admits every element and generally limits appeal to jurisdictional or sentencing issues even with a certificate of probable cause, so the court's reliance on Hunter is sound in principle. However, the opinion does not describe what Manning actually argued, which makes it impossible to confirm the characterization and falls short of the explanation the Supreme Court has asked for in People v. Kelly. |
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 wholly frivolous may so advise the court and request to withdraw, with a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, after which the court conducts its own review.
- relied: People v. Hunter (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 37 — A guilty plea admits all elements of the offense and waives non-jurisdictional issues; issues going to guilt or pre-plea matters are not cognizable on appeal even with a certificate of probable cause.
- missed: People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 — In a Wende appeal, the Court of Appeal's opinion should set forth the contentions personally raised by the defendant in a supplemental brief and explain why they fail; the opinion here states only that Manning's brief raised no cognizable issue without identifying his contentions.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court followed the Wende/Anders procedure, independently reviewed the record, and correctly noted that a guilty plea limits the issues reviewable on appeal, so affirmance is a defensible result. It did not, however, describe the contentions in Manning's supplemental brief or explain individually why each was not cognizable, as People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 directs, and it gave no analysis of the restitution fine or protective order it identified as possible issues.
Opinion
Filed 8/26/15 P. v. Manning 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, FOURH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D065566
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD239475)
DAVID MANNING,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Eugenia Eyherabide, Judge. Affirmed.
Russell S. Babcock, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, and Annie Featherman Fraser, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant David Manning was charged with one count of stalking with a court order in effect (Pen. Code, § 646.9, subd. (b)),1 and it was alleged in connection with the 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. stalking count that he had previously been convicted of violating section 422, within the meaning of section 646.9, subdivision (c)(1). It was also alleged he had previously been convicted of violating section 646.9, subdivision (a), within the meaning of section 646.9, subdivision (c)(2). He was also charged with two counts of making a criminal threat (§ 422), and it was alleged he suffered a prior strike (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12 & 668), a "prison" prior (§§ 667.5, subd. (b) & 668), and a serious felony prior conviction (§§ 667, subd. (a)(1), 668 & 1192.7).
Manning entered into a plea bargain with the prosecution under which he pleaded guilty to the stalking count and admitted the prior strike, in exchange for (1) a stipulated sentence of six years in prison, (2) an agreement the stalking conviction would not be a strike, and (3) dismissal of the other charges and allegations. The court sentenced Manning to six years in prison, awarded 702 days of total custody credits, ordered payment of various fines and fees, and entered a 10-year protective order.
Manning subsequently filed a notice of appeal and obtained a certificate of probable cause. We affirm the judgment.
FACTS
Manning unlawfully and repeatedly followed another person and made a malicious and credible threat intending to place that person in fear for his safety and, in doing so, violated a valid restraining order prohibiting that behavior.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the proceedings below.
Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to review the record for 2 error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738. Counsel has identified as possible, but not arguable, issues to be whether the trial court erred in ordering the restitution fine under section 1202.4, subdivision (b), in the amount of $1440, and whether the trial court erred in the protective order it imposed. We granted Manning permission to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf and he has responded, but his response identified no issue that is cognizable on appeal from a guilty plea. (See, e.g., People v. Hunter (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 37, 41- 42.)
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. Manning has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
McDONALD, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
O'ROURKE, J.
IRION, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Hunter C034939 · 2002-07-11
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12