People v. Wilson CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCS266698
- Trial judge
- Ana Espana
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Joan K. Irion (author), Alex C. McDonald, O'Rourke
Analysis
The trial court revoked Wilson's probation and sentenced him to three years in prison after finding he violated the terms by living with and contacting his victim without reporting his address change. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record pursuant to Wende and Anders, finding no reasonably arguable issues of error.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Revocation of probation and imposition of a three-year prison sentence following a finding of probation violation.“The court found that Wilson had violated the terms of his probation and, consistent with the recommendation from the probation department, revoked probation and sentenced Wilson to the middle term of three years.” | unclear | not reached | unsure The opinion is a Wende/Anders review where counsel presented no arguments for reversal. The court states it independently reviewed the record and found 'no reasonably arguable appellate issues.' It does not explicitly apply a specific standard of review (such as substantial evidence or abuse of discretion) to the trial court's factual findings or sentencing decision, nor does it analyze the merits of the revocation. Therefore, the standard of review is unclear, and the appellate court did not reach a specific view on the correctness of the trial court's ruling beyond affirming it based on the absence of arguable error. |
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, and to file a brief identifying the case and inviting the court to review the record.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel who believes an appeal is wholly frivolous, requiring a brief identifying the case and inviting the court to review the record for error.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for cases where counsel finds no arguable issues. However, it is a bare-bones affirmation that provides no substantive legal analysis of the trial court's findings or sentencing, which is typical for this type of unpublished disposition but offers no insight into the correctness of the underlying law application.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court found Wilson violated probation (by living with the protected victim and failing to report his address), revoked probation, and sentenced him to the middle term of three years for the Penal Code section 273.5 conviction. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief raising no issues, Wilson filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Finding that Wilson violated the terms of his probation after a contested evidentiary hearing“The court found that Wilson had violated the terms of his probation and, consistent with the recommendation from the probation department, revoked probation and sentenced Wilson to the middle term of three years.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The opinion recites that Wilson himself testified at the hearing and admitted living with the victim at an unreported address, which directly establishes violations of the no-contact and address-reporting conditions. Under Wende/Anders independent review the court found no arguable issue, and nothing in the recited record suggests otherwise. |
Revocation of probation and imposition of the middle term of three years“revoked probation and sentenced Wilson to the middle term of three years.” | unclear | correct | agree with court Revocation and sentencing following a probation violation are reviewed for abuse of discretion, though the opinion does not state a standard because it conducts Wende review. The middle term is the presumptive term under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (b), and the opinion identifies no error; the limited record described does not reveal any. |
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: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal frivolous may so advise the court and request to withdraw, accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, with the court then conducting its own examination.
The appellate opinion: sound — The court followed the required Wende/Anders procedure: counsel filed a no-issue brief, the defendant was invited to and did not file a supplemental brief, and the court independently reviewed the record and found no arguable issues. The result is sound given the defendant's own admission of the probation violations, though the opinion is brief and does not discuss any standards of review, as is typical of Wende affirmances.
Opinion
Filed 1/12/16 P. v. Wilson 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, D067627
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCS266698)
MICHAEL ANDREW WILSON,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Ana España, Judge. Affirmed.
Eric A. Dumars, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Michael Andrew Wilson appeals from a judgment of commitment following a finding he violated the terms of his probation from a prior conviction. Wilson's brief on appeal, filed by appointed appellate counsel, presents no argument for reversal, but invites this court to review the record for error in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Wilson did not respond to separate invitations from appellate counsel and from this court to file a supplemental brief. After independently reviewing 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
On October 18, 2013, Wilson pleaded guilty to one felony count of inflicting corporal injury to Flordelisa Naliza, a person with whom he was formerly cohabiting, in violation of Penal Code section 273.5, subdivision (a). The court sentenced Wilson to three years of probation and entered a Criminal Protective Order — Domestic Violence that restricted him from harassing or otherwise contacting the victim, Naliza (Protective Order). In addition, one of the specific conditions of probation was that Wilson not contact Naliza.
On November 29, 2014, after being contacted by Naliza who was concerned for her own safety, the police arrested Wilson and charged him with violating the Protective Order. Upon further investigation, the probation department learned that Wilson had been living with Naliza for approximately six months — which, the department contended, resulted in Wilson's knowing violations of the Protective Order and the terms of his probation that precluded him from contacting Naliza and required him to report (and obtain approval of) any change of address within 72 hours of a change.
Wilson denied the formal accusations, and the trial court presided over a contested evidentiary hearing for the alleged probation violations on January 30, 2015. Wilson 2 testified at the hearing, admitting that he had been living with Naliza at an address he had not reported to the probation department. The court found that Wilson had violated the terms of his probation and, consistent with the recommendation from the probation department, revoked probation and sentenced Wilson to the middle term of three years.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. Counsel presents no argument for reversal; mentions no possible, but not arguable issues, pursuant to Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738; and asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel invited Wilson to file a brief on his own behalf, we granted Wilson permission to file a brief on his own behalf, but Wilson has not responded.
Our review of the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues.
Wilson has been adequately represented by counsel in this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
IRION, J. WE CONCUR:
MCDONALD, Acting P. J.
O'ROURKE, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12