People v. Warnick CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from an order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of Imperial County · No. JCF33483
- Trial judge
- Poli Flores, Jr.
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- delinquency
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Gilbert Nares, Cynthia Aaron
Analysis
The trial court revoked James L. Warnick's probation and imposed a four-year prison sentence after finding he violated the terms of his probation. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, finding no reasonably arguable issues for reversal.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Revocation of probation and imposition of a four-year prison sentence“Following a contested hearing the court found Warnick in violation of probation. The court revoked probation and imposed a four-year prison sentence.” | de novo | not reached | unsure The court did not explicitly state the standard of review for the probation revocation, but in a Wende/Anders review where no issues are identified, the court effectively affirms the lower court's findings without detailed analysis. The court's silence on the specific standard is typical for this type of procedural disposition. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1970) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to file a brief identifying any reasonably arguable issues, and if none exist, to request the court to review the record for error.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel who believes an appeal is frivolous, requiring a brief identifying potential issues and a request for independent court review.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for appointed counsel who finds no arguable issues. However, it provides no substantive legal analysis or citation to the specific standard of review for probation revocation, relying entirely on the court's independent review of the record.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe Imperial County Superior Court found James Warnick in violation of his probation (granted after a no contest plea to elder abuse under Penal Code section 368, subdivision (b)(1)) following a contested hearing, revoked probation, and imposed a four-year prison sentence. On appeal, counsel filed a Wende brief identifying only sufficiency of the evidence as a possible issue; the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issue, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Finding, after a contested hearing, that Warnick violated probation (based among other things on his arrest for possession of methamphetamine and threats to kill), revocation of probation, and imposition of a four-year prison sentence“Whether the evidence at the probation revocation hearing was sufficient to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Warnick violated the terms of his probation.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The opinion recites that officers found Warnick in possession of methamphetamine and took him into custody for threats to kill at his mother's home while on probation, which, if credited, readily supports a violation finding under the preponderance standard governing revocation. The court did not articulate the appellate standard (substantial evidence) or detail the hearing evidence, but under Wende independent review nothing in the recited record suggests error, and the four-year sentence is within the range for a section 368(b)(1) felony. |
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 lacks merit may file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, and the court then reviews the record.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the Wende/Anders procedure, recites the facts and the single potential issue identified by counsel, and affirms after independent review, which is a defensible result given the recited evidence of a new drug possession arrest and threats while on probation. It is thin, however: it does not state the substantial-evidence standard, does not describe the revocation hearing evidence, and misdates Wende as 1970 rather than 1979.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
record incompleteOpinion
Filed 10/20/15 P. v. Warnick 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, D067583
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. JCF33483)
JAMES L. WARNICK, Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Imperial County, Poli Flores, Jr., Judge. Affirmed.
William D. Farber, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance by Respondent.
As part of a plea agreement, James L. Warnick entered a no contest plea to one count of abuse of an elder or dependent adult. (Pen. Code, § 368, subd. (b)(1).) Pursuant to the plea agreement, the court granted Warnick formal probation for three years on various terms and conditions. The court also issued a criminal domestic violence protective order. A month after the sentencing, a petition to revoke probation was filed. A formal hearing was scheduled for September 30, 2014. At the time scheduled for the hearing, the parties agreed to further modifications of the probation order.
In January 2015 a new petition to revoke probation was filed based, among other things, upon Warnick's arrest for possession of a controlled substance. (Health & Saf.
Code, § 11377, subd. (a).)
Following a contested hearing the court found Warnick in violation of probation.
The court revoked probation and imposed a four-year prison sentence. Warnick filed a timely notice of appeal.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1970) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), indicating he is unable to identify any reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Warnick the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On July 14, 2014, law enforcement officers were called to the residence of Warnick's 83-year-old mother, Edna Warnick. She reported that Warnick had shoved her, knocked her to the ground and threatened to kill her.
Warnick refused the request to come out of the home and ultimately had to be subdued and handcuffed to get him out of the house.
2 On January 4, 2015, law enforcement again went to Edna Warnick's home where Warnick was taken into custody for making threats to kill. Warnick was also found to be in possession of a small amount of methamphetamine.
DISCUSSION
As we have indicated, appellate counsel has been unable to identify any reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal and has asked this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified the following possible, but not reasonably arguable issue to assist this court in its review of the record:
Whether the evidence at the probation revocation hearing was sufficient to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Warnick violated the terms of his probation.
We have reviewed the entire record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738. We have been unable to identify any reasonably arguable issue for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Warnick on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
NARES, J.
AARON, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12