People v. Guzman CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD260516
- Trial judge
- Eugenia Eyherabide
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), O'Rourke, Gilbert Nares
Analysis
The trial court convicted the defendant of attempted robbery and providing false information to a police officer, sentencing him to 14 years in prison after striking certain priors. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
Affirmance of the judgment of conviction and sentence“Thus, although we are not pleased with counsel's briefing, we are satisfied that on this record Guzman has received competent representation on this appeal.” | de novo | correct | agree with court The court applied the standard Wende review, examining the entire record to identify any reasonably arguable issues. The court found no such issues, thereby affirming the lower court's judgment. This is the standard procedure for appointed counsel who cannot find arguable issues. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to review the record for error and file a brief identifying any reasonably arguable issues, or stating that none exist.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires counsel to file a brief identifying any possible, but not arguable, issues to assist the court in its independent review of the record.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly identifies the Wende/Anders framework and states that the court conducted an independent review of the record. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' opinion because it fails to provide any substantive analysis of the evidence or legal issues, relying entirely on the negative finding of no arguable issues.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual disposition unusual dispositionA jury convicted Guzman of attempted robbery and giving false information to a police officer, the court found prior conviction allegations true, struck some priors, and imposed a 14-year determinate term. On appeal, counsel filed a Wende brief, Guzman filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issue, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Judgment of conviction and 14-year sentence following jury verdict and court trial on priors (reviewed under Wende independent record review)“we have reviewed the entire record and have not been able, through our own examination, to discover any reasonably arguable issue for reversal on appeal” | unclear | correct | agree with court The opinion is a Wende affirmance; no specific trial-court ruling is challenged or analyzed. The court followed the required procedure of independent record review after counsel found no arguable issues and the defendant declined to file his own brief. The opinion does not disclose record details sufficient to evaluate any particular ruling, but nothing in the recited facts or procedural history suggests error, and the sentencing (striking a strike and prison priors) appears within the court's discretion. |
Adequacy of appellate counsel's Wende brief despite failure to list possible but not arguable issues per Anders“the absence of offering "possible, but not arguable issues" has not adversely impacted our search for error in this record” | unclear | correct | agree with court The court noted counsel did not comply with Anders by identifying possible issues, but concluded its own full review of the record cured any deficiency and that Guzman received competent representation. This is consistent with Wende, which places the ultimate duty of independent review on the appellate court, and with Smith v. Robbins, which holds California's Wende procedure satisfies due process. |
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 issues before affirming.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal frivolous should file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
The appellate opinion: sound — The court applied the Wende procedure correctly, conducting its own independent review of the record and affirming when it found no arguable issue, and it candidly addressed counsel's failure to identify possible issues under Anders. It did not cite People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, which requires a Wende opinion to briefly describe the facts, procedural history, and the issues raised by the defendant, but the opinion substantively complies with Kelly since no issues were raised by Guzman.
Opinion
Filed 12/22/15 P. v. Guzman 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, D068677
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD260516)
JESSE GUZMAN,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Eugenia Eyherabide, Judge. Affirmed.
John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance by Respondent.
A jury convicted Jessie Guzman of attempted robbery (Pen. Code,1 §§ 211/664)
and providing false information to a police officer (§ 148.9, subd. (a)). The jury also found not true an allegation that Guzman used a deadly weapon in the commission of the 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. attempted robbery (§ 1192.7, subd. (c)(23)). The court thereafter found true three prison priors (§ 667.5, subd. (b)); two serious felony prior convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)) and two serious/violent felony (strike) priors (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)).
At sentencing the court struck the prison priors and one of the strike priors.
Guzman was sentenced to a determinate term of 14 years in prison. Guzman filed a timely notice of appeal.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating he has not been able to identify any reasonably arguable issue for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Guzman the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal but he has not responded.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The victim in this case, Elroy Simmons was a security guard in downtown San Diego. At about 3:50 a.m., on January 22, 2015, Simmons was near Fifth Street and F Street when he was approached by Guzman. Guzman demanded that Simmons give him Simmons's cell phone. Simmons told Guzman to leave.
Simmons called 911. He was again approached by Guzman who continued to demand the cell phone. Simmons again refused and Guzman threatened to "cut" him.
Ultimately Guzman produced a knife.
When Simmons's supervisor approached the two men, Guzman ran away.
Guzman was arrested shortly thereafter, but no knife was found. Guzman gave the officer a false name and date of birth.
2 No evidence was presented by the defense.
DISCUSSION
As we have indicated, appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 indicating he has been unable to identify any reasonably arguable issue for reversal on appeal. Unfortunately, counsel has not complied with the requirements of Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) and has not offered any possible, but not arguable issues to assist the court in its review of the record for error. However, we have reviewed the entire record and have not been able, through our own examination, to discover any reasonably arguable issue for reversal on appeal. We can confidently state the absence of offering "possible, but not arguable issues" has not adversely impacted our search for error in this record. Thus, although we are not pleased with counsel's briefing, we are satisfied that on this record Guzman has received competent representation on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
NARES, J.
O'ROURKE, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12