People v. Thompson CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from an order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCN329220
- Trial judge
- Carlos O. Armour
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- McINTYRE (author), Judith L. Haller, Judith D. McConnell
Analysis
The trial court accepted Thompson's guilty plea to two counts of stalking and granted him formal probation with credit for time served. The Court of Appeal affirmed the order after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, finding no arguable issues.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Grant of formal probation following guilty plea to two counts of stalking“We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.” | de novo | not reached | unsure The court did not review the merits of the probation order because the appeal was procedurally handled as a Wende/Anders case where counsel found no arguable errors. The appellate court's independent review of the record confirmed the absence of arguable issues, leading to an affirmance without addressing the specific legal standards for probation. |
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 file a brief identifying potential errors and request leave to withdraw when no arguable issues exist.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for appeals where counsel identifies no arguable errors. It accurately states that the court conducted an independent review and found no issues, which is the required standard for affirmance in such cases.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionAfter Thompson pleaded guilty to two counts of stalking in exchange for dismissal of three criminal threats counts and two misdemeanor cases, the trial court placed him on three years of formal probation with 908 days of credit, a no-contact order, and fines deemed satisfied by credit. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief raising no issues, Thompson 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
Order granting formal probation following guilty plea to two stalking counts (reviewed as a whole under Wende independent review, with no specific issue raised by counsel or defendant)“We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues. Competent counsel has represented Thompson on this appeal.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The opinion applies the Wende/Anders procedure: counsel filed a no-issue brief, the defendant was notified and given an opportunity to file a supplemental brief and did not, and the court states it independently reviewed the record. The described disposition (negotiated plea, probation, 454 actual plus 454 conduct days consistent with Penal Code section 4019 day-for-day credits, fines deemed satisfied) shows nothing facially irregular. Pre-plea rulings on the motions to dismiss and reduce counts would not be reviewable after a guilty plea without a certificate of probable cause, which the opinion does not mention, but nothing in the recited record suggests an arguable issue was overlooked. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel files a brief raising no arguable issues, the Court of Appeal must independently review the entire record for arguable error.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous may so advise the court, and the court must then examine the record to determine whether the appeal is frivolous.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion follows the required Wende/Anders procedure, recites the facts and procedural history, confirms the defendant was given notice and an opportunity to file a supplemental brief, and reports an independent review finding no arguable issues. It does not discuss whether a certificate of probable cause was obtained or the scope of review after a guilty plea, but because no issue was raised and the sentencing terms appear regular, the affirmance is defensible.
Opinion
Filed 1/28/16 P. v. Thompson 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, D068458
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SCN329220) v.
CHRISTIAN SEAN THOMPSON,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Carlos O.
Armour, Judge. Affirmed.
Law Office of Russell S. Babcock and Russell S. Babcock for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Christian Sean Thompson lost legal and physical custody of his son Ronald in 2013 or early 2014. John Griffith, a family law attorney, represented Ronald's mother during that time. In February and March of 2014, Thompson directed threatening e-mails to Griffith and voicemails to Griffith's office. These included threats to kill Griffith and referenced Griffith's family.
The prosecution charged Thompson with three counts of criminal threats and two counts of stalking. At the preliminary hearing in February 2015, the court bound Thompson over on all counts after denying defense motions to dismiss the threat counts for lack of imminence, the stalking counts for lack of continuous harassment, and to reduce the offenses to misdemeanors.
In March 2015, Thompson requested removal of his public defender. The court relieved the public defender and appointed the alternate public defender (APD). In April 2015, Thompson sought to have the APD relieved, which the court denied. The court then permitted Thompson to proceed in pro per. A week later, the court granted re- appointment of the APD at Thompson's request.
In May 2015, Thompson pleaded guilty to two counts of stalking based on the facts adduced at the preliminary hearing. In exchange, the District Attorney dismissed the three counts of criminal threats and would submit on a grant of probation to Thompson with credit for time served. The District Attorney also agreed to dismiss two open misdemeanor cases, numbers C327718 and C330867DV. The court granted Thompson a three-year term of probation, credit-for-time-served of 908 days (454 actual plus 454 credited), and ordered that he have no contact with the victims for the duration of probation. The court ordered fines that were deemed satisfied by his credit.
Thompson appeals from the order granting formal probation.
2 DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. He presented no argument for reversal, but asked this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders). Counsel advised Thompson of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. We also granted Thompson permission to file a brief on his own behalf. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from Thompson.
We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues. Competent counsel has represented Thompson on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
McINTYRE, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
HALLER, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12