People v. Lopez CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D067581 · 2015-08-26 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD255791
Trial judge: Robert F. O'Neill
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Judith L. Haller (author), O'Rourke, Joan K. Irion

Analysis

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

The trial court accepted William Lopez's guilty plea to two counts of possession of a forged identification card and one count of obtaining personal identifying information, and imposed a four-year sentence. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after conducting a Wende review of the record and finding no arguable issues.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Affirmance of the judgment following a Wende review “We have reviewed the entire record and conclude there are no arguable issues. We affirm the judgment.”	de novo	not reached	agree with court The court applied the standard Wende review, examining the entire record for any arguable errors of law or fact. It concluded that the issues raised by counsel (sentencing agreement compliance and voluntariness of the plea) were not reasonably arguable, leading to an affirmance.
Denial of Marsden motion “On February 6, 2015, the court denied defendant's Marsden motion.”	abuse of discretion	not reached	unsure The opinion notes the trial court denied the Marsden motion but does not provide any analysis or reasoning regarding this specific ruling in the discussion section. It is mentioned only as part of the procedural background.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Establishes the duty of appointed appellate counsel to review the record for arguable issues when no issues are presented.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to file a brief identifying any arguable issues, even if none are found, and to request the court to review the record.
relied: People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 — Establishes the right to substitute counsel if there is a conflict of interest or breakdown in the attorney-client relationship.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is a standard Wende review where the court found no arguable issues in the record. It correctly cites the controlling authorities for the review process (Wende and Anders) and notes the procedural history, including the Marsden motion denial, without further analysis as it was not raised as an arguable issue.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:30Z · confidence low

The trial court accepted Lopez's guilty plea to two counts of possessing a forged identification card or driver's license and one misdemeanor count of acquiring personal identifying information with intent to defraud, with an admitted strike prior, denied his Marsden motion, and imposed the stipulated four-year sentence. On a Wende/Anders appeal in which counsel raised no arguable issues and Lopez filed no supplemental brief, the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Acceptance of guilty plea as knowing, intelligent and voluntary, with advisement and waiver of constitutional rights “Defendant initialed the portions of the guilty plea form reflecting that he had been advised of and was waiving the various constitutional rights.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The opinion recites that Lopez initialed the plea form advisements and orally confirmed his waiver at the change-of-plea hearing, which is adequate record support for a valid plea under a Wende review. The court did not, however, note whether a certificate of probable cause under Penal Code section 1237.5 was obtained, which would ordinarily be a prerequisite to challenging plea validity on appeal; the omission does not affect the result because no challenge was raised.
Imposition of the stipulated four-year sentence (32 months on count 1 plus 16 months on count 5, each doubled for the strike) “We have examined the record for error, including the possible issues identified by appellate counsel, and conclude there are no reasonably arguable appellate issues.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The sentence described matches the stipulated term: the 16-month lower term on count 1 doubled to 32 months, and one-third the two-year middle term (eight months) on count 5 doubled to 16 months, totaling four years. The arithmetic and the doubling under the Three Strikes law are consistent with the plea agreement as recited, so there is nothing in the opinion suggesting sentencing error.
Denial of defendant's Marsden motion “On February 6, 2015, the court denied defendant's Marsden”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion merely notes the denial and states that independent review of the entire record disclosed no arguable issue; it gives no detail about the Marsden hearing. A Marsden denial is reviewed for abuse of discretion, but the opinion does not articulate that standard or the hearing's substance, so the reader cannot independently verify the ruling beyond the court's representation that it reviewed the record.

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 to determine whether any arguable issue exists.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous may so advise the court and request permission to withdraw, accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
relied: People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 — A defendant seeking substitution of appointed counsel must be permitted to state the reasons for the request, and the court must inquire into them before ruling.
missed: People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084 — A defendant may not appeal from a judgment on a guilty plea to challenge the validity of the plea without a certificate of probable cause under Penal Code section 1237.5, and the requirement is applied strictly.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the standard Wende procedure: it recites the facts and procedural history, lists counsel's possible issues, notes that Lopez declined to file his own brief, and states that independent review found no arguable issue. It reaches a defensible result but does not mention whether a certificate of probable cause was obtained, which bears on whether plea-validity issues were even cognizable, and it gives no substantive description of the Marsden hearing.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 8/26/15 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, D067581

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD255791)

WILLIAM ALBERT LOPEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Robert F.

O'Neill, Judge. Affirmed.

Patrick J. Hennessey, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

William Lopez pled guilty to two counts of possession of a forged California identification card or driver's license and one count of obtaining personal identifying information with intent to defraud, and admitted a strike prior conviction. Lopez's appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth the factual and procedural background of the case and possible but not arguable issues. Counsel presents no argument for reversal but requests that we review the entire record for error. We granted Lopez permission to file a brief on his own behalf, and he has not responded. We have reviewed the entire record and conclude there are no arguable issues. We affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On May 1, 2014, the police stopped Lopez because he was driving a vehicle with expired registration.1 During the traffic stop, the police found defendant in possession of a counterfeit California identification card (i.e., with defendant's photograph but someone else's name). On August 8, 2014, the police arrested another individual at a hotel, and during the ensuing investigation found a variety of items reflecting defendant's possession of numerous counterfeit instruments (including a California driver's license and a checkbook) and a burglary tool. Further investigation revealed that on August 5, 2014, defendant had used forged checks at various retail outlets, and on August 1, 2014, he had rented a self-service storage unit using another person's identifying information on a counterfeit driver's license.

Based on this conduct, defendant was charged with 15 counts of various forgery- related and other offenses, including possession of a forged driver's license or California 1 Our summation of the facts is from the probation report. 2 identification card, counterfeiting a seal, using another's personal identifying information, forgery of another's handwriting, possession of blank forged check, possession of completed forged check, burglary, possession of burglary tool, giving false identification to an officer, and acquiring personal identifying information with intent to defraud. Eight of the counts included an enhancement allegation for an offense committed while the defendant was released on bail or on his own recognizance. The complaint also alleged 11 prior prison terms and one strike prior conviction.

On November 20, 2014, defendant pled guilty to three of the counts and admitted the strike prior conviction, and the remaining charges were dismissed. He pled guilty to:

(1) count 1, possession of a forged California identification card (Pen. Code,2 § 470b) on May 1, 2014; (2) count 5, possession of a forged driver's license on August 1, 2014; and (3) count 13, the misdemeanor offense of acquiring personal identifying information with intent to defraud (§ 530.5, subd. (c)(1)) on August 8, 2014. The parties stipulated that he would receive a four-year sentence, consisting of 32 months on count 1 (the 16-month lower term, doubled based on the strike) and 16 months on count 5 (one-third the two- year middle term (eight months)), doubled based on the strike). Defendant initialed the portions of the guilty plea form reflecting that he had been advised of and was waiving the various constitutional rights. Also, at the change of plea hearing the court asked defendant if he agreed to waive his constitutional rights, and defendant responded affirmatively.

2 Subsequent unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code. 3 On February 6, 2015, the court denied defendant's Marsden3 motion. That same date, the court imposed the four-year sentence.

DISCUSSION

Appellate counsel has set forth the following possible but not arguable issues: (1)

whether Lopez was sentenced in accordance with the term of his plea agreement, and (2)

whether Lopez entered his plea freely and voluntarily.

We have examined the record for error, including the possible issues identified by appellate counsel, and conclude there are no reasonably arguable appellate issues.

Competent counsel has represented Lopez on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

HALLER, Acting P.J.

WE CONCUR:

O'ROURKE, J.

IRION, J.

3 People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118. 4

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12
People v. Marsden Crim. 14119 · 1970-02-26