People v. Williams CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD244308
- Trial judge
- Dwayne K. Moring
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), O'Rourke, Patricia D. Benke
Analysis
The trial court, on remand, exercised its discretion to order the defendant to register as a sex offender following a new hearing. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
Order requiring defendant to register as a sex offender under Penal Code section 290.006“Once again the trial court exercised its discretion to order Williams to register as a sex offender.” | abuse of discretion | not reached | agree with court The appellate court did not reach the merits of the trial court's ruling because the appointed counsel filed a Wende brief stating no reasonably arguable issues existed, and the court's independent review of the record confirmed this finding. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to identify arguable issues or file a brief explaining why none exist, and requires the court to independently review the record.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to withdraw from representation when no arguable issues exist, requiring a brief identifying potential issues and court review.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the Wende/Anders framework for indigent appeals. The court explicitly states it reviewed the entire record and found no error, satisfying the constitutional requirements for appointed counsel.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionOn remand after a prior appeal reversed the sex offender registration order, the trial court held a new hearing, considered additional briefing and a psychologist's report, and again exercised its discretion under Penal Code section 290.006 to order Williams to register as a sex offender following his guilty pleas to two counts of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor under 16 (§ 261.5, subd. (d)). On appeal, counsel filed a Wende brief identifying the registration order as the only possible issue, Williams filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no reasonably arguable issue, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Order on remand requiring Williams to register as a sex offender under Penal Code section 290.006 (discretionary registration)“Once again the trial court exercised its discretion to order Williams to register as a sex offender.” | abuse of discretion | correct | unsure The opinion states the trial court held a new hearing, received additional briefing and a psychologist's report, and then exercised its discretion to order registration; the appellate court reviewed the whole record under Wende/Anders and found no arguable abuse of discretion. The opinion does not describe the trial court's findings under section 290.006 or the content of the psychologist's report, so the correctness of the discretionary call cannot be independently assessed from the text; the procedural Wende review itself appears properly conducted. |
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 no meritorious issues should identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, and the reviewing court must examine the record itself.
The appellate opinion: sound — The court followed the Wende/Anders procedure: it noted counsel's no-issue brief, identified the possible issue counsel flagged, confirmed the defendant was offered a chance to file his own brief, and stated it reviewed the entire record. The opinion is conclusory and gives no substantive analysis of the section 290.006 findings or the psychologist's report, but that is typical and permissible for a Wende affirmance, so the result is defensible on the record described.
Opinion
Filed 2/16/16 P. v. Williams 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, D068671
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD244308)
CORY B. WILLIAMS, Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Dwayne K. Moring, Judge. Affirmed.
Benjamin Kington for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Cory B. Williams entered guilty pleas to two counts of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor under age 16. (Pen. Code,1 § 261.5, subd. (d).) In 2014 Williams was granted probation on various terms and conditions and was ordered to register as a sex offender under section 290.006. Williams appealed from his original sentencing.
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. In case D064768, filed January 29, 2015, this court affirmed the convictions but struck the residency requirement in the probation conditions. This court also reversed the order requiring Williams to register as a sex offender and remanded for a new hearing on the registration issue.
On remand the court held a new hearing, received additional briefing and the report of a psychologist. Once again the trial court exercised its discretion to order Williams to register as a sex offender.
Williams 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 required by Wende.
We offered Williams the opportunity to file his own brief in this appeal. Williams has not responded.2
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 asking this court to review the record for error. Although counsel has not cited Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has nevertheless complied 2 Since our previous opinion, contained in the clerk's transcript, discusses the facts of the underlying offenses, we find it unnecessary to again discuss the facts of those offenses here. 2 with Anders by identifying a possible, but not reasonably arguable issue for reversal on appeal:
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in ordering Williams to register as a sex offender.
We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738. We have not been able to identify any reasonably arguable issue for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Williams on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.
WE CONCUR:
BENKE, Acting P. J.
O'ROURKE, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12