People v. Kahananui CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D067402 · 2015-11-12 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCE340021
Trial judge: Daniel B. Goldstein
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Joan K. Irion (author), Judith D. McConnell

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T06:04Z · confidence low

The trial court denied the defendant's motion to suppress evidence and her subsequent motion to withdraw her guilty plea, finding the waiver of appeal rights was valid. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, finding no reasonably arguable issues.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of motion to suppress evidence “The trial court denied the suppression motion.”	unclear	not reached	agree with court The appellate court did not review the merits of the suppression ruling because the defendant waived the right to appeal it via the plea agreement, and the motion to withdraw the plea was denied. The court found no reasonably arguable issue on this point during its Wende review.
Denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea “the trial court denied the motion to withdraw the guilty plea, finding that Kahananui knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived her rights.”	abuse of discretion	not reached	agree with court The court identified the denial of the motion to withdraw the plea as a potential issue but concluded after independent review that it was not reasonably arguable, implying the trial court's finding of a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver was supported by the record.
Validity of waiver of right to appeal suppression denial “On the guilty plea form, Kahananui agreed to give up her right to appeal the denial of her suppression motion.”	unclear	not reached	agree with court The court listed the validity of the waiver as a potential issue but found it not reasonably arguable, effectively upholding the trial court's acceptance of the plea with the waiver.

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 arguable issues are presented.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to withdraw from a case where no arguable issues exist, requiring a brief identifying potential issues and an independent court review.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it strictly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for cases with no arguable issues. It correctly identifies the potential issues raised by counsel and states that an independent review of the record revealed no reasonably arguable errors.

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 denied Kahananui's motion to suppress evidence found in a search of her residence, accepted her guilty plea to possession of methamphetamine for sale (which included a waiver of the right to appeal the suppression ruling), denied her later motion to withdraw the plea, and placed her on three years' formal probation with conditions including an assessment-program condition and a no-contact order as to her codefendant. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief identifying possible but not arguable issues; the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no reasonably arguable issue, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of motion to suppress evidence obtained in the warrantless search of Kahananui's residence “The trial court denied the suppression motion.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The opinion did not articulate a standard; it conducted a Wende review and found no arguable issue. On the facts recited, the ruling is defensible: the trial court resolved a credibility conflict against Kahananui, the initial entry was to find a theft suspect she directed deputies toward, drugs were seen in plain view, and Banks held a Fourth Amendment waiver covering the residence. Moreover, Kahananui expressly waived appellate review of the suppression ruling in her plea form, so the issue was not arguable in any event.
Denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea (Pen. Code, § 1018) “finding that Kahananui knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived her rights.”	abuse of discretion	correct	agree with court The opinion frames the issue as whether the court abused its discretion, which is the settled standard for a section 1018 motion. Kahananui's only claimed ground was that she did not understand she was waiving her appeal of the suppression ruling, but the plea form expressly contained that waiver and the trial court made a finding that her waiver was knowing and voluntary; nothing in the recited record shows clear and convincing evidence of good cause to withdraw the plea.
Acceptance of guilty plea, including validity of the plea, factual basis, and waiver of right to appeal the suppression ruling “On the guilty plea form, Kahananui agreed to give up her right to appeal the denial of her suppression motion.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The court treated the constitutional validity of the plea, its factual basis, and the appeal waiver as possible but not arguable issues. The recited facts (74 grams of methamphetamine found in her residence) supply an ample factual basis, and the written plea form with an express appeal waiver, later confirmed by the trial court's finding at the withdrawal hearing, supports the conclusion that no arguable issue existed.
Imposition of probation conditions requiring participation in any assessment program directed by the probation officer and no contact with codefendant Banks “the conditions of probation included a condition to "[p]articipate and comply with any assessment program if directed by the [Probation Officer]"”	unclear	correct	unsure The no-contact condition with a codefendant in a drug-sales case is reasonably related to the offense and future criminality and is routinely upheld. The assessment-program condition delegating the decision to the probation officer is the sort of term that occasionally draws delegation or vagueness challenges, but the opinion gives no detail about the condition's scope and I cannot identify a specific error on this record, so I cannot say the court erred in finding no arguable issue.

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 lacking in merit may so advise the court, identifying anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, and the court must then examine the record itself.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion follows the Wende/Anders procedure correctly: it recites the facts and procedural history, lists the issues counsel flagged, confirms the defendant was invited to file a supplemental brief, and states that the court independently reviewed the record and found no arguable issue. Because it is a Wende affirmance, it contains no substantive analysis of the individual rulings, but nothing in the recited record suggests an arguable error that the court overlooked.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 11/12/15 P. v. Kahananui 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, D067402

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCE340021)

LEINA KAHANANUI,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Daniel B.

Goldstein, Judge. Affirmed.

Alissa Bjerkhoel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Respondent.

Leina Kahananui appeals from the judgment following her guilty plea to possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378) and the denial of her motion to withdraw her guilty plea. Appointed appellate counsel filed a brief presenting no argument for reversal, but inviting this court to review the record for error in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Kahananui has not responded to our invitation to file a supplemental brief. After having independently reviewed the entire record for error as required by Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S.

738 (Anders) and Wende, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Investigating a theft of a wallet that occurred at a casino, a sheriff's deputy obtained information that the suspect left the casino with Kahananui in her vehicle. The deputy arrived at Kahananui's residence and spoke with Kahananui's grandmother, who lived in the front duplex at the property. The grandmother stated that Kahananui and her boyfriend lived in the back duplex. Kahananui arrived and spoke with the deputy. As requested by the deputy, Kahananui retrieved her identification from inside the back portion of the duplex, where she resided, and brought out her boyfriend, Jason Banks, whom the deputy erroneously believed might be the suspect who took the wallet.

The deputy then told Kahananui that he was looking for the person who was with her at the casino and took a wallet. Kahananui yelled and became hysterical. According to the deputy, Kahananui stated, "Hell, no. I am not taking any part in that. I am going to kill him. He is in there. You can go get him," pointing inside her residence. Deputies detained Kahananui and Banks in the patrol car and searched the residence for the suspect, whom they found in a shed. In the course of the search for the suspect, deputies saw evidence of drugs under a bed. The deputies performed a records check on 2 Kahananui and Banks, and found out that Banks had a valid Fourth Amendment waiver, allowing them to conduct a warrantless search of his residence. The deputies then searched the residence more fully and found 130 grams of marijuana and 74 grams of methamphetamine, along with narcotic pills and other drug paraphernalia.

After a preliminary examination in which the court found insufficient evidence to proceed against Kahananui on charges related to the narcotic pills, an information was filed alleging in count 1 that Kahananui possessed methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378) and in count 2 that Kahananui possessed marijuana for sale (id., § 11359).

On August 22, 2014, the trial court heard a motion by Kahananui to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the search of her residence on the ground that the search was unconstitutional. Kahananui testified at the suppression hearing, claiming that Banks lived in the front portion of the duplex with her grandmother, rather than in the back portion of the duplex with her, and that she did not tell the deputy to search for the suspect in the residence, as he claimed, but instead, she told the deputy that she would go into the residence and get the suspect. The trial court denied the suppression motion.

On August 25, 2014, Kahananui pled guilty to possessing methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378), with the People agreeing to dismiss the count alleging Kahananui possessed marijuana for sale and also to dismiss a different misdemeanor case. On the guilty plea form, Kahananui agreed to give up her right to appeal the denial of her suppression motion.

3 On November 25, 2014, Kahananui filed a motion to withdraw her guilty plea on the ground that she did not understand that she was giving up her right to appeal the denial of her suppression motion. On December 16, 2014, the trial court denied the motion to withdraw the guilty plea, finding that Kahananui knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived her rights.

At the subsequent sentencing hearing, the trial court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed Kahananui on three years' formal probation. As relevant here, the conditions of probation included a condition to "[p]articipate and comply with any assessment program if directed by the [Probation Officer]" and to "[h]ave no contact with the co-defendant(s)[:] Bank[s], Jason."

Kahananui filed a notice of appeal along with a request for a certificate of probable cause, which the trial court issued.

DISCUSSION

Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings in the trial court. Counsel presented no argument for reversal but invited this court to review the record for error in accordance with Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.

Pursuant to Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, counsel identified as possible but not arguable issues: (1) the validity of Kahananui's waiver of her right to appeal the denial of her motion to suppress; (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Kahananui's motion to withdraw her guilty plea; (3) whether the trial court erred in denying Kahananui's motion to suppress evidence, including several subissues regarding 4 the merits of that motion; (4) whether Kahananui's guilty plea was constitutionally valid;

(5) whether there was a factual basis for Kahananui's guilty plea; and (6) whether the trial court erred in imposing the conditions of probation requiring Kahananui to "[p]articipate and comply with any assessment program if directed by the [Probation Officer]" and to "[h]ave no contact with the co-defendant(s)[:] Bank[s], Jason."

After we received counsel's brief, we gave Kahananui an opportunity to file a supplemental brief, but Kahananui did not respond.

A review of the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the issues suggested by counsel, disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Kahananui has been adequately represented by counsel on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

IRION, J.

WE CONCUR:

MCCONNELL, P. J.

PRAGER, J.* * Judge of the San Diego Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. 5

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12