People v. Salas CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D069354 · 2016-05-11 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCS280408
Trial judge: Garry G. Haehnle
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Judith D. McConnell, Cynthia Aaron

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T05:50Z · confidence low

The trial court denied Salas's motion to strike a serious/violent felony prior conviction and ordered restitution of $5,448.62 following his guilty pleas. 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
Denial of motion to strike serious/violent felony prior conviction “1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to strike the serious/violent felony prior conviction;”	abuse of discretion	not reached	unsure The appellate court did not analyze the merits of this issue, noting only that it was identified by counsel as 'possible, but not reasonably arguable.' The court affirmed the judgment based on its independent Wende review finding no error.
Ordering restitution to Enterprise Rent-a-Car and setting the amount via stipulation “2. Whether the trial court erred in ordering restitution to Enterprise Rent-a-Car, the owner of the vehicle, and in setting the amount of restitution by means of a stipulation by the parties.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The appellate court did not analyze the merits of this issue, noting only that it was identified by counsel as 'possible, but not reasonably arguable.' The court affirmed the judgment based on its independent Wende review finding no error.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to identify reasonably arguable issues and the court to conduct an independent review of the record if none are found.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to file a brief identifying any arguable issues and the court to review the record independently to ensure the defendant's rights are protected.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for indigent appeals where counsel finds no arguable issues. However, it provides no substantive legal analysis of the specific claims raised by counsel, relying entirely on the court's unexplained independent review.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:31Z · confidence low

The trial court denied Salas's motion to strike his serious/violent felony prior, imposed a four-year term (low term of two years doubled) after his guilty plea to vehicle taking and receiving stolen property, and ordered $5,448.62 in restitution following a hearing. On appeal counsel filed a Wende brief, Salas filed nothing, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issue, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of motion to strike the serious/violent felony prior conviction (Romero motion) “Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to strike the serious/violent felony prior conviction;”	abuse of discretion	correct	agree with court Denial of a motion to strike a strike is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and the trial court mitigated by imposing the low term before doubling, which is consistent with a reasoned exercise of discretion. The opinion recites no facts suggesting the court misunderstood its authority or acted irrationally, so nothing in the record supports a finding of error.
Restitution order of $5,448.62 to Enterprise Rent-a-Car, amount set by stipulation of the parties “Whether the trial court erred in ordering restitution to Enterprise Rent-a-Car, the owner of the vehicle, and in setting the amount of restitution by means of a stipulation by the parties.”	abuse of discretion	correct	agree with court A business entity that owns the stolen vehicle is a direct victim entitled to restitution under Penal Code section 1202.4, and a defendant who stipulates to the amount cannot ordinarily complain of it on appeal. Nothing in the opinion indicates the stipulation was involuntary or the amount unsupported, so there is no basis to find error.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel finds no arguable issue, 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 must file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
missed: People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 — Trial courts have discretion under Penal Code section 1385 to strike prior serious/violent felony convictions in furtherance of justice; the opinion reviewed a denial of such a motion without citing the governing authority.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the Wende/Anders procedure, identifies the two potential issues counsel flagged, and confirms independent record review before affirming. It does not cite Romero or state the abuse-of-discretion standard for the issues it names, which is typical of Wende dispositions but leaves the analysis unexplained.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 5/11/16 P. v. Salas 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, D069354

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCS280408)

LARRY SALAS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Garry G.

Haehnle, Judge. Affirmed.

Laura R. Sheppard, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

Larry Salas entered a guilty plea to one count of taking and driving a vehicle (Veh.

Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) and one count of receiving stolen property (Pen. Code,1 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. § 496d). He also admitted one prison prior (§ 667.5, subd. (b)) and one serious/violent felony prior conviction (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)).

Salas's motion to strike the serious/violent felony prior was denied. The court imposed a four-year prison term consisting of the low term of two years for taking the vehicle, doubled because of the serious/violent felony prior. Following a restitution hearing the court ordered restitution in the amount of $5,448.62.

Salas filed a timely notice of appeal.

Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), indicating she is unable to identify any reasonably arguable issue for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende.

We offered Salas the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Salas admitted he took and drove a vehicle without the permission of the owner with the intent to permanently or temporarily deprive the owner of its property.

DISCUSSION

As we have noted, appellate counsel has not identified any reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal and has asked that we review the record for error as mandated by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. As required by Anders v. California (1967)

386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified the following possible, but not reasonably arguable issues for our review:

2 1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to strike the serious/violent felony prior conviction;

2. Whether the trial court erred in ordering restitution to Enterprise Rent-a-Car, the owner of the vehicle, and in setting the amount of restitution by means of a stipulation by the parties.

We have reviewed the record as required by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, and have not identified any reasonably arguable issue for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Salas on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

AARON, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12