People v. Sypho CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD255848, SCD257666
- Trial judge
- David M. Szumowski
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- McINTYRE (author), Alex C. McDonald, Gilbert Nares
Analysis
The trial court revoked probation in two cases and reinstated it with conditions requiring the defendant to serve 365 and 300 days in custody, respectively. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after conducting an independent review of the record and finding no reasonably arguable issues.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Revocation of probation and imposition of custody conditions (365 days in Case 1, 300 days in Case 2)“Our review of the record pursuant to Wende, has disclosed no reasonably arguable issues on appeal.” | de novo | not reached | agree with court The appellate court did not apply a specific standard of review to the trial court's sentencing decisions because it found no arguable issues to review under the Wende mandate. The court affirmed the judgment based on the absence of error in the record. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to conduct an independent review of the record for error when no issues are presented.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende mandate to review the record when appointed counsel presents no issues. The court's conclusion that no reasonably arguable issues exist is supported by the brief's summary of the proceedings and the lack of any response from the defendant.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court revoked Sypho's probation in two cases after he admitted failing to remain law-abiding, then reinstated probation in each case on condition of serving 300 and 365 days in custody, with Sypho waiving Penal Code section 4019 credits in case one as an alternative to the probation department's recommended two-year local sentence. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief raising no issues, Sypho 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
Revocation of probation in both cases and reinstatement of probation on condition of 300 and 365 days of custody, with section 4019 credit waiver in case one“Our review of the record pursuant to Wende, has disclosed no reasonably arguable issues on appeal.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The appellate court conducted an independent Wende review of the record rather than applying a conventional standard to a contested ruling. Nothing in the opinion suggests error: Sypho admitted the violation, the custody terms were below the recommended two-year sentence, and the credit waiver is described as a bargained alternative, which is permissible under People v. Johnson. The opinion recites no record detail that would let me independently verify the credit calculations or the knowing and intelligent nature of the waiver, so I can only agree based on the court's representation of its review. |
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.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion follows the Wende procedure correctly: counsel filed a no-issue brief, the defendant was given the opportunity to file his own brief and did not, and the court independently reviewed the record and found no arguable issues. The opinion is sound for what it does, though it is a bare Wende affirmance that does not cite Anders or Kelly or discuss any potential issue (such as the validity of the section 4019 credit waiver), which is typical for such dispositions.
Opinion
Filed 9/30/15 P. v. Sypho 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, D067984
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. Nos. SCD255848, SCD257666) THEDFORD SYPHO, Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, David M. Szumowski, Judge. Affirmed.
Steven J. Carroll, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In case number SCD255848 (case one), Thedford Sypho pleaded guilty to carrying a dirk or dagger and possessing methamphetamine. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Sypho on probation for a period of three years. In case number SCD257666 (case two), Sypho pleaded guilty to resisting an executive officer. The plea provided Sypho credit for time served, concurrent with the sentence imposed for a revocation of probation in case one.
Sypho later appeared before the court for probation violations in both cases.
Sypho admitted that he failed to remain law-abiding and the trial court revoked probation. The probation department recommended a two-year sentence in local custody. In case two, the trial court reinstated probation on the condition that Sypho serve 300 days in custody. He received credit for 111 days of actual custody and 110 days of Penal Code section 4019 custody. In case one, the court reinstated probation on the condition that Sypho serve 365 days in custody. He received credit for 204 days of actual custody. Sypho waived Penal Code section 4019 credits as an alternative to the sentence recommended by probation. The trial court stayed all fines, fees or costs in both cases. Sypho timely appealed both cases.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. He presented no argument for reversal, but asked this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We granted Sypho permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded.
Our review of the record pursuant to Wende, has disclosed no reasonably arguable issues on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Sypho on this appeal.
2 DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
MCINTYRE, J.
WE CONCUR:
NARES, Acting P. J.
MCDONALD, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12