People v. Wofford CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D068736 · 2016-04-28 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD260540
Trial judge: Michael S. Groch
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Judith L. Haller (author), Alex C. McDonald, Joan K. Irion

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T05:51Z · confidence low

The trial court denied the defendant's request for substitute counsel and a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, subsequently imposing a stipulated sentence. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, finding no reasonably arguable issues on appeal after a Wende/Anders review.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of Marsden motion for substitute counsel “the court made a finding counsel's representation was "exemplary" and that appellant had failed to show his constitutional rights to effective assistance of counsel had been substantially impaired”	abuse of discretion	not reached	unsure The appellate court did not reach the merits of this issue because it found no reasonably arguable issues on appeal after its independent review of the record.
Denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea “Following denial of the Marsden motion, the court found no legal cause to postpone sentencing and imposed the stipulated sentence”	abuse of discretion	not reached	unsure The appellate court did not reach the merits of this issue because it found no reasonably arguable issues on appeal after its independent review of the record.
Validity of guilty plea “we have not found any reasonably arguable appellate issues”	de novo	not reached	unsure The appellate court did not reach the merits of this issue because it found no reasonably arguable issues on appeal after its independent review of the record.

Authorities

relied: People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 18 — Establishes the procedure for a defendant to request substitute counsel and the standard for the trial court's discretion in granting or denying such a request.
relied: People v. Smith (1993) 6 Cal.4th 684 — Clarifies the standard for evaluating a Marsden motion, specifically that the trial court must determine if the defendant's constitutional rights to effective assistance of counsel have been substantially impaired.
relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appellate counsel to file a brief identifying arguable issues and the court to conduct an independent review of the record if no issues are identified.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appellate counsel to file a brief identifying arguable issues and the court to conduct an independent review of the record if no issues are identified.
relied: People v. Manriquez (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 1167 — Establishes that a defendant who fails to obtain a certificate of probable cause is precluded from challenging the validity of the plea or the facts underlying the charges on appeal.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court applied the Wende/Anders framework to conduct an independent review of the record. It concluded that no reasonably arguable issues existed, thereby affirming the judgment without addressing the specific merits of the Marsden motion or plea withdrawal.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:30Z · confidence low

After Wofford pleaded guilty to DUI causing injury with a strike, a prior DUI, and a great bodily injury enhancement for a stipulated five-year-eight-month term, the trial court denied his sentencing-day Marsden motion, found no legal cause to delay sentencing, imposed the stipulated sentence, and denied a certificate of probable cause. On appeal, counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief; the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of defendant's post-plea Marsden motion for substitute counsel “After questioning both defendant and his counsel, the court made a finding counsel's representation was "exemplary" and that appellant had failed to show his constitutional rights to effective assistance of counsel had been substantially impaired.”	abuse of discretion	correct	agree with court The trial court held a hearing, questioned both defendant and counsel, and applied the People v. Smith standard governing post-conviction Marsden motions; the opinion identifies abuse of discretion as the framing and finds nothing arguable after Wende review. Nothing in the described record suggests the required showing of substantially impaired representation or an irreconcilable conflict was made, so the result is defensible, though the appellate court does not discuss whether a certificate of probable cause was needed to reach this issue at all.
Refusal to continue sentencing to permit a motion to withdraw the guilty plea; imposition of stipulated sentence “Following denial of the Marsden motion, the court found no legal cause to postpone sentencing and imposed the stipulated sentence.”	abuse of discretion	correct	agree with court Once the Marsden motion failed, the only stated ground for withdrawal (dissatisfaction with counsel) had been rejected, and a decision not to postpone sentencing is discretionary. The opinion treats this as a non-arguable issue under Wende; given the stipulated sentence and the certificate-of-probable-cause bar, the conclusion is supportable on this record.
Validity of the guilty plea (whether knowing, voluntary and intelligent) “Because the court denied appellant's request for a certificate of probable cause, appellant is precluded from challenging the validity of the plea or the facts underlying the charges.”	unclear	not reached	agree with court Section 1237.5 and Manriquez bar review of plea validity without a certificate of probable cause, and the trial court denied one. The appellate court correctly declined to reach the merits of this issue.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed 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 no meritorious issues may file a brief identifying anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
relied: People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 18 — A defendant seeking substitute appointed counsel must be given an opportunity to state the reasons for the request and the court must inquire into them.
relied: People v. Smith (1993) 6 Cal.4th 684 — The same Marsden standard applies to post-conviction requests for substitute counsel; substitution is required only on a showing of inadequate representation or an irreconcilable conflict.
relied: People v. Manriquez (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 1167 — Absent a certificate of probable cause, a defendant may not challenge the validity of a guilty plea on appeal.
missed: People v. Johnson (2009) 47 Cal.4th 668 — A certificate of probable cause is required to appeal the denial of a post-plea Marsden motion whose purpose was to obtain counsel to move to withdraw the plea, because such a challenge goes to the validity of the plea.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court performed the independent review Wende requires, correctly applied the section 1237.5 bar to plea-validity claims, and reached a result the record supports. It did not address whether, under People v. Johnson, the certificate-of-probable-cause requirement also foreclosed review of the post-plea Marsden denial, though that omission does not affect the affirmance.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

Filed 4/28/16 P. v. Wofford 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, D068736

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD260540)

ADONIS L. WOFFORD, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Michael S.

Groch, Judge. Affirmed.

Patrick Dudley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

As part of a plea agreement, Adonis L. Wofford entered a guilty plea to one count of driving under the influence causing injury (Veh. Code, § 23153), and admitted one strike prior conviction (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)), 1170.12); a prior driving under the influence conviction within 10 years (Veh. Code, § 23560); and personally inflicting great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 12022.7, subd. (a)).1 The plea agreement included a stipulated prison sentence of five years eight months. The remaining count and enhancements were dismissed.

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURE2

On June 5, 2014, defendant was driving erratically southbound on Hal Street in San Diego County. He crossed into the northbound lane and collided head on with a car driven by Salvador Torres. The impact caused Torres's vehicle to collide with another car. Defendant then collided with a parked car. A child passenger in the Torres vehicle suffered a deep laceration to his ear, tearing it nearly in half, and requiring several stitches to repair it.

At the sentencing hearing following defendant's guilty plea, his counsel informed the court appellant wanted to withdraw his guilty plea as he was dissatisfied with counsel's representation. The court conducted a Marsden3 hearing. After questioning both defendant and his counsel, the court made a finding counsel's representation was "exemplary" and that appellant had failed to show his constitutional rights to effective assistance of counsel had been substantially impaired. Having made this finding and applying People v. Smith (1993) 6 Cal 4th 684, the court denied defendant's request for substitute counsel.

1 All subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 Because there was no preliminary hearing the facts are derived from the probation report.

3 People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 18. 2 Following denial of the Marsden motion, the court found no legal cause to postpone sentencing and imposed the stipulated sentence. The court later denied defendant's request for a certificate of probable cause.

DISCUSSION4

Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) indicating he is unable to identify any argument for reversal but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, the brief identifies possible, but not arguable issues whether (1) the trial court abused its discretion or improperly denied the Marsden motion; (2) whether the trial court erred when it decided not to allow defendant to move to withdraw his guilty plea; and (3)

whether defendant's guilty plea was entered knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently. We offered Wofford the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has failed to respond.

We have reviewed the entire record in accordance with Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738 and have not found any reasonably arguable appellate issues. Competent counsel has represented Wofford on appeal.

4 Because the court denied appellant's request for a certificate of probable cause, appellant is precluded from challenging the validity of the plea or the facts underlying the charges. (§ 1237.5; People v. Manriquez (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 1167, 1170.) 3 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HALLER, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

MCDONALD, J.

IRION, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Manriquez E011535 · 1993-08-18
People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12
Helfend v. Southern California Rapid Transit District L.A. 29688 · 1970-02-18