People v. Inga CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D067716 · 2015-10-16 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD236182
Trial judge: Leo Valentine, Jr.
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Judith D. McConnell (author), O'Rourke, Patricia D. Benke

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T06:06Z · confidence low

The trial court resentenced the defendant to a determinate term of 12 years and concurrent indeterminate terms of 15 years to life, denying a request for concurrent sentencing on the determinate counts. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record under People v. Wende, finding no reasonably arguable issues of error.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of defense counsel's request for concurrent sentencing for the determinate terms imposed for counts 3 through 5. “At the resentencing hearing, the court denied defense counsel's request for concurrent sentencing for the determinate terms imposed for counts 3 through 5.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The appellate court conducted an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende and concluded it was unable to identify any reasonably arguable appellate issue, thereby affirming the judgment without specifically analyzing the sentencing discretion claim.
Defendant's pro per claims regarding juror bias and ineffective assistance of counsel based on extra-record evidence. “Inga's "assertions concerning facts that were not presented to the jury are not part of the appellate record and hence cannot be reviewed on the record before us."”	de novo	not reached	agree with court The court held that the defendant's assertions concerning facts not presented to the jury are not part of the appellate record and cannot be reviewed, and that ineffective assistance claims based on extra-record evidence should be decided in a habeas corpus proceeding rather than on direct appeal.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Mandates independent review of the record for error when appointed appellate counsel files a Wende brief.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to identify possible issues to aid the court's independent review.
relied: People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 — Asserts that facts not presented to the jury are not part of the appellate record and cannot be reviewed on direct appeal.
relied: People v. Mendoza Tello (1997) 15 Cal.4th 264 — Holds that claims of ineffective assistance of counsel based on extra-record evidence should be decided in a habeas corpus proceeding rather than on direct appeal.
relied: People v. Munoz (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 860 — Guides the trial court's discretion in considering a request to relieve retained counsel and appoint new counsel.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the Wende/Anders framework for independent review and properly dismisses extra-record claims based on established California precedent. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' opinion because it fails to explicitly address the specific sentencing discretion argument identified by counsel, relying instead on a general statement that no reasonably arguable issues were found.

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 conditional reversal, the trial court relieved retained counsel, appointed new counsel who found no basis for a new trial motion, denied a request for concurrent determinate terms, and resentenced Inga to 12 years plus two concurrent 15-years-to-life terms with specified credits, fines, and fees. On this Wende appeal the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found Inga's pro se claims of juror bias and ineffective assistance rested on matters outside the record, identified no arguable issue, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of defense request to run the determinate terms for counts 3 through 5 concurrently rather than consecutively “discretion in denying Inga's motion to impose the determinate sentence concurrently”	abuse of discretion	correct	agree with court The sentence described (middle term of eight years on the section 288(b)(1) count plus one-third the six-year middle term, two years, on each section 288(a) count) is arithmetically consistent with the determinate sentencing law, and the opinion reports no facts suggesting the choice of consecutive terms for separate lewd acts was arbitrary. The court's Wende conclusion that no arguable issue exists is defensible, though the opinion does not set out the trial court's stated reasons.
Calculation of presentence custody and conduct credits (1,303 actual days plus 123 days local conduct credit under section 2933.1) “Inga received credits of 1,303 actual days plus 123 days of local conduct”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion simply recites the credit figures and finds no arguable issue. The 123 days of conduct credit is well under 15 percent of 1,303 actual days, which is consistent with the court awarding local conduct credit only on the pre-original-sentencing custody while leaving post-sentencing prison conduct credit to CDCR, but the opinion does not explain this, so I cannot verify it from the record quoted.
Imposition of restitution fines, court security fee, criminal conviction assessment, criminal justice administration fee, and victim restitution “were calculated correctly, and (4) whether there were any errors in the imposition of fines”	unclear	correct	agree with court The per-conviction fees ($40 x 5 = $200 under section 1465.8; $30 x 5 = $150 under Gov. Code section 70373) match five convictions, the $10,000 restitution fine is the statutory maximum and the matching section 1202.45 fine was properly suspended. Nothing in the opinion suggests error.
Appointed counsel's determination on remand that there was no legal basis for a new trial motion, and Inga's related pro se claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and juror bias “Inga's contentions allege ineffective assistance of counsel, this claim cannot be resolved”	unclear	not reached	agree with court Under People v. Kelly and People v. Mendoza Tello, ineffective-assistance claims depending on facts outside the appellate record (uncalled witnesses, videos, a juror seeing the defendant in handcuffs) must be raised by habeas corpus, so declining to decide them on direct appeal is correct.

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.
relied: People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 — In a Wende appeal the court addresses the defendant's pro se contentions, but assertions about facts outside the appellate record cannot be reviewed on direct appeal.
relied: People v. Mendoza Tello (1997) 15 Cal.4th 264 — Ineffective assistance claims that depend on evidence outside the record should be raised by habeas corpus petition rather than on direct appeal.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds no meritorious issues may identify possible issues to assist the reviewing court's independent review.
relied: People v. Munoz (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 860 — A trial court must exercise discretion under the proper standard when a defendant seeks to discharge retained counsel; this was the basis of the prior conditional reversal and remand.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion correctly applies Wende and Anders procedure and properly relies on Kelly and Mendoza Tello to decline review of extra-record ineffective assistance and juror claims. It is brief and does not explain the basis for the consecutive-term choice or the credit figures, so the result is defensible but the reasoning is thin.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

Filed 10/16/15 P. v. Inga 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, D067716

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD236182)

FRANK WILLIAM INGA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Leo Valentine, Jr., Judge. Affirmed.

Allison H. Ting, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

A jury found Frank William Inga guilty of two counts of oral copulation with a child 10 years old or younger (Pen. Code, § 288.7, subd. (b); counts 1 & 2),1 one count of 1 Further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. forcible lewd act upon a child under the age of 14 (§ 288, subd. (b)(1); count 3), and two counts of committing a lewd act upon a child (§ 288, subd. (a); counts 4 & 5). The jury found true allegations Inga engaged in substantial sexual contact with a child under the age of 14 in committing the crimes charged in counts 4 and 5 (§ 1203.066, subd. (a)(8)).

In Inga's prior appeal (People v. Inga (May 15, 2014, D063729) [nonpub. opn.]), we conditionally reversed the judgment and remanded the matter to the trial court with directions to exercise its discretion in accordance with People v. Munoz (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 860, 869 when considering Inga's request to relieve retained counsel and to appoint new counsel. On remand, the court granted the motion to relieve Inga's retained counsel and appointed new counsel to investigate whether a new trial motion should be filed based on an allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel. Thereafter, newly appointed counsel informed the trial court he did not find a legal basis to file a motion for new trial.

At the resentencing hearing, the court denied defense counsel's request for concurrent sentencing for the determinate terms imposed for counts 3 through 5. The court sentenced Inga to a determinate term of 12 years, based on the middle term of eight years for count 3 plus two consecutive two-year terms (each one-third of the middle term)

for counts 4 and 5, plus indeterminate terms of 15 years to life for counts 1 and 2 to run concurrently. Inga received credits of 1,303 actual days plus 123 days of local conduct credits (§ 2933.1) for a total of 1,426 days. The court imposed a restitution fine of $10,000 (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)); an additional restitution fine of $10,000, which is suspended unless parole is revoked (§ 1202.45); a court security fee of $200 (§ 1465.8, 2 subd. (a)(1) [$40 per conviction]); an immediate critical needs fee of $150 (Gov. Code, § 70373 [$30 per misdemeanor or felony conviction]); a criminal justice administration fee of $154 (Gov. Code, § 29550.1); and victim restitution of $729 (§ 1202.4, subd. (f)).

DISCUSSION

Inga appeals. His appointed appellate counsel filed a brief requesting 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 four possible issues (see Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, 744): (1) whether Inga received effective assistance of counsel at the remanded proceedings, (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Inga's motion to impose the determinate sentence concurrently rather than consecutively to the indeterminate sentence, (3) whether Inga's custody credits were calculated correctly, and (4) whether there were any errors in the imposition of fines and fees.

We granted Inga permission to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. He submitted a letter brief contending he should be granted a retrial and a new attorney because, "my lawyer [did not] bring forth certain issues pertaining to [two] jurors on my sentencing[.] One … saw me in handcuffs. [T]he other juror … left crying." He also contends his lawyer gave him ineffective legal counsel and refused or failed to call Inga's witnesses or videos. "He didn't argue any arguments on my behalf[.] Didn't confront/call [the minor] to the stand once [the minor's] story changed."

Inga's "assertions concerning facts that were not presented to the jury are not part of the appellate record and hence cannot be reviewed on the record before us." (People v. 3 Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 126.) Similarly, to the extent Inga alleges bias on the part of the jurors, it is not supported by the appellate record before us. (Ibid.) To the extent Inga's contentions allege ineffective assistance of counsel, this claim cannot be resolved on the present record. (Ibid., citing People v. Mendoza Tello (1997) 15 Cal.4th 264, 266- 267 [claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on extra-record evidence should be decided in a habeas corpus proceeding rather than on direct appeal].) After independently reviewing the record for error and considering appellate counsel's and Inga's briefs, we were unable to identify any reasonably arguable appellate issue and affirm the judgment. Inga was competently represented in this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

MCCONNELL, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

BENKE, J.

O'ROURKE, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Kelly S133114 · 2006-11-27
People v. Munoz G034265 · 2006-04-20
People v. Mendoza Tello S055184 · 1997-04-17
People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12