People v. Hernandez CA4/1

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

The trial court sentenced the defendant to 16 months in prison and imposed a $10 fine pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.5, which was not mentioned during the sentencing hearing. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, determining that the issue regarding the fine was waived because it was not raised in the trial court.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Imposition of a $10 fine pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.5 without an express finding of ability to pay. “The issue was never raised in the trial court and is thus waived on appeal. (People v. Trujillo (2015) 60 Cal.4th 850.)”	unclear	error	agree with court The court held that the issue was waived on appeal because it was not raised in the trial court, relying on People v. Trujillo (2015) 60 Cal.4th 850. The court concluded that because the issue was waived, it did not constitute a reasonably arguable issue for reversal under the Wende/Anders review framework.

Authorities

• relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Establishes the requirement for appointed appellate counsel to identify reasonably arguable issues and for the court to independently review the record when no issues are identified.
• relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to file a brief identifying any potentially meritorious issues and for the court to conduct an independent review of the record.
• relied: People v. Trujillo (2015) 60 Cal.4th 850 — Issues not raised in the trial court are generally waived on appeal.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound in its application of the Wende/Anders framework, correctly identifying that the sole issue raised by counsel was waived due to failure to raise it below. However, it is a brief, unpublished opinion that relies entirely on waiver to dismiss the claim without analyzing the underlying statutory requirements for fines under section 1202.5.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

Report

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

After Jose Hernandez pleaded no contest to second degree burglary and then failed to appear for sentencing, the Imperial County Superior Court sentenced him to the lower term of 16 months in prison with fines and fees, and the abstract of judgment included a $10 Penal Code section 1202.5 fine that the court had not orally pronounced. On a Wende appeal, the Court of Appeal held the ability-to-pay challenge to the $10 fine was forfeited for lack of objection below, found no reasonably arguable issues after independent review, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Imposition of the lower term of 16 months in prison after Hernandez failed to appear for sentencing, reviewed under Wende for any arguable error “We have reviewed the entire record and have not discovered any reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The plea agreement expressly allowed a prison sentence if Hernandez failed to appear, and he did not appear. The court conducted the independent record review Wende requires and found nothing arguable; the opinion gives no basis to doubt that conclusion.
Inclusion in the abstract of judgment of a $10 fine under Penal Code section 1202.5 without an express ability-to-pay finding and without oral pronouncement at sentencing “The issue was never raised in the trial court and is thus waived on appeal. (People v. Trujillo (2015) 60 Cal.4th 850.) Thus it does not raise a reasonably arguable issue.”	unclear	correct	unsure Treating the ability-to-pay argument as forfeited is consistent with Trujillo and McCullough, which hold that failure to object below forfeits challenges to the sufficiency of ability-to-pay findings. However, the opinion itself states the fine was never mentioned at sentencing and appeared only in the abstract; under People v. Mitchell the oral pronouncement is the judgment and an abstract may not add to it, and such clerical discrepancies are correctable at any time without regard to forfeiture. The court did not address this distinct problem, so the forfeiture ruling resolves the issue only in part.

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 arguable error.
• relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal without merit may so advise the court and should identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
• relied: People v. Trujillo (2015) 60 Cal.4th 850 — A defendant who fails to object in the trial court forfeits an appellate challenge to the absence of an ability-to-pay determination for fees imposed at sentencing.
• missed: People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181 — The oral pronouncement of judgment controls; an abstract of judgment is not the judgment and cannot add to or modify it, and courts may correct such clerical discrepancies at any time.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The forfeiture holding is supported by Trujillo and the Wende review was properly conducted, so the affirmance is defensible. But the opinion itself notes the $10 fine was never orally pronounced and appeared only in the abstract, and it does not address Mitchell or the rule that an abstract cannot add a fine the court did not impose, which is a clerical-error question not subject to forfeiture.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Report