People v. Ezra CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of Imperial County · No. JCF33852
- Trial judge
- Poli Flores, Jr.
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- delinquency
- Panel
- Gilbert Nares (author), Richard D. Huffman, Sr., O'Rourke
Analysis
The trial court accepted a no-contest plea and sentenced the defendant to 32 months in state prison, consecutive to a prior sentence, based on a plea agreement. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record found no reasonably arguable issues for reversal.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Affirmance of the judgment following a Wende/Anders review“We have independently reviewed the record under Wende and considered the possible issue of the propriety of the sentence identified by Ezra's counsel. We have found no reasonably arguable issues for reversal or modification of the judgment.” | de novo | not reached | agree with court The court applied the standard Wende review, which requires an independent examination of the record to identify any reasonably arguable issues. The court found none, leading to an affirmance. This is the standard procedure for such appeals. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Establishes the requirement for independent review of the record by appellate counsel in cases where no issues are identified.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires counsel to file a brief identifying any arguable issues, even if none are found, and to request permission for the defendant to file a brief.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it follows the established Wende/Anders protocol for reviewing a record where counsel finds no arguable issues. The court explicitly states it conducted an independent review and found no errors, which is the correct legal standard for this type of appeal.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe Imperial County Superior Court accepted Marcos Ezra's no contest plea to unlawful possession of weapon stock in a penal institution (Pen. Code, § 4502, subd. (b)), with an admitted prior murder strike, and sentenced him to the stipulated 32 months (low term of 16 months doubled) consecutive to his existing prison term. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief, Ezra 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
Acceptance of the no contest plea and strike admission upon findings that the waivers were knowing and voluntary and that a factual basis existed“The trial court accepted Ezra's plea after finding that Ezra understood his constitutional rights and voluntarily waived them, that his plea and admission were freely and voluntarily made” | unclear | correct | agree with court The court conducted independent Wende review rather than applying a named standard. The opinion recites that Ezra, assisted by counsel, initialed and signed a plea form and that the trial court made the required findings; in addition, Ezra obtained no certificate of probable cause under Penal Code section 1237.5 and his notice of appeal expressly disclaimed any challenge to the plea's validity, so no plea-validity issue was cognizable. Nothing in the recited record suggests error. |
Imposition of the stipulated 32-month state prison sentence (16-month low term doubled under the Three Strikes law) consecutive to the term Ezra was then serving“On May 14, 2015, pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, the court sentenced Ezra to 32 months in state prison to be served consecutively to the prison term he was then serving.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The sentence matched the plea agreement exactly, and Ezra waived appellate review of strike-prior issues and of any stipulated sentence. Counsel's only flagged issue, whether the sentence was appealable, is not arguable given the waiver and the absence of a certificate of probable cause. The court's independent review finding no arguable sentencing error is consistent with the record described. |
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 wholly frivolous may so advise the court and identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, after which the court reviews the record itself.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion follows the Wende/Anders procedure: it summarizes the proceedings, notes counsel's single possible issue, confirms the defendant was given and declined the opportunity to file his own brief, and reports an independent review finding no arguable issues. Given the stipulated sentence, express appellate waivers, and absence of a certificate of probable cause, the affirmance is well supported by the record recited.
Opinion
Filed 1/12/16 P. v. Ezra 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, D068106
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. JCF33852)
MARCOS EZRA,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Imperial County, Poli Flores, Jr., Judge. Affirmed.
Law Office of Johanna S. Schiavoni and Johanna S. Schiavoni, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant Marcos Ezra's appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief asking this court to independently review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In September 2014 an Imperial County grand jury indictment charged Ezra with the felony offense of willfully and unlawfully possessing a dirk or dagger while confined in a California penal institution (Pen. Code, § 4502, subd. (a)).
On April 16, 2015, Ezra─assisted by counsel─initialed and signed a guilty/no contest plea form indicating he was entering a plea of no contest to an amended count (count 1) of unlawful possession of weapon stock in violation of Penal Code section 4502, subdivision (b), and admitting an allegation he had suffered a strike prior (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)).1 Ezra also waived his right to raise on appeal "issues related to strike priors (under [Penal Code] sections 667[, subdivisions] (b)-(i) and 1170.12)" and "any sentence stipulated herein."
The trial court accepted Ezra's plea after finding that Ezra understood his constitutional rights and voluntarily waived them, that his plea and admission were freely and voluntarily made, that he understood the nature of the charges and the consequences of his plea and his admission, and that there was a factual basis for the admission. The plea agreement contemplated a sentence of 32 months in state prison, consisting of the low term of 16 months doubled to 32 months under the Three Strikes law as a result of Ezra's admitted prior murder conviction, which he would serve consecutively to his current custodial sentence on a prior conviction.
1 The record indicates Ezra's admitted prior strike was a murder conviction (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) dated February 10, 1999, in Orange County Superior Court case No. 97SF1109. 2 On May 14, 2015, pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, the court sentenced Ezra to 32 months in state prison to be served consecutively to the prison term he was then serving.
Ezra timely filed a notice of appeal the next day, stating the appeal was based upon matters occurring after the plea that do not affect the validity of the plea. Ezra did not request a certificate of probable cause pursuant to Penal Code section 1237.5.
DISCUSSION
Ezra's appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), summarizing the proceedings below and indicating she was unable to find any reasonably arguable issues for reversal or modification of the judgment on appeal. Ezra's counsel has identified one possible, but not arguable, issue under Anders that she inartfully identifies as follows: "Is the [s]entence [a]ppealable?"
We granted Ezra permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded.
We have independently reviewed the record under Wende and considered the possible issue of the propriety of the sentence identified by Ezra's counsel. We have found no reasonably arguable issues for reversal or modification of the judgment.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. Ezra's appellate counsel has competently represented him in this appeal.
3 DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NARES, J.
WE CONCUR:
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
O'ROURKE, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12