People v. Goldschmied CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from an order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCN341983
- Trial judge
- Michael J. Popkins
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Cynthia Aaron (author), Judith L. Haller, Joan K. Irion
Analysis
The trial court accepted a plea agreement and placed the defendant on probation with a 120-day custody term and various fines and fees. The Court of Appeal affirmed the order after an independent review of the record found no reasonably arguable issues of error.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Order granting probation (including 120-day custody term and fines/fees)“A review of the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the issues suggested by counsel, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue.” | de novo | not reached | agree with court The court conducted an independent review of the entire record as required by People v. Wende and Anders v. California. It concluded that no reasonably arguable issues of error existed, thereby affirming the judgment without addressing the specific merits of the plea agreement compliance or fee calculations. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to file a brief identifying potential issues and the court to independently review the record for error when counsel finds no arguable issues.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to withdraw from a case where 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 reviewing a record where appointed counsel identifies no arguable issues. The court fulfilled its duty to independently review the record and affirm the judgment based on the absence of error.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court accepted Goldschmied's guilty plea to DUI causing injury with multiple-victim and great bodily injury admissions and placed him on formal probation with 120 days in custody and various fines and fees, consistent with the 120-day lid in the plea agreement. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief, the defendant filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issue, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Sentence (probation with 120 days custody) complied with the plea agreement's 120-day lid“I indicated to your attorney that based on your prior history and the facts of this case that I felt a fair and appropriate sentence would be a 120-day lid. That means you would not get more than 120 days.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The record quoted shows an indicated sentence of no more than 120 days local custody and the court imposed exactly 120 days, so the sentence fell within the lid; the court also stated it would merely consider CPAC, not that it was promised. No basis to find a plea-agreement violation appears. |
Imposition of mandatory fines and fees (court operations assessment, criminal conviction fee, criminal justice administration fee, alcohol program fees, restitution fine and stayed probation revocation fine)“Whether the trial court properly set all mandatory fines and fees?” | unclear | correct | agree with court The listed amounts ($40 operations assessment, $30 conviction assessment, $300 restitution fine with matching stayed probation revocation fine) correspond to standard statutory minimums; nothing in the opinion suggests an unauthorized fee, though the opinion does not analyze each fee individually. |
Independent Wende/Anders review disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue“has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Goldschmied has been adequately represented by counsel on this appeal.” | de novo | correct | agree with court The court followed the required Wende procedure: counsel filed a no-issue brief identifying possible issues, the defendant was given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief, and the court independently reviewed the record. The opinion is conclusory but that is the accepted format for Wende affirmances. |
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 frivolous should so advise the court and file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion follows the standard Wende/Anders procedure, identifies the possible issues counsel flagged, and confirms independent record review before affirming. It does not explain its analysis of the plea compliance or fee issues, but that is typical of Wende dispositions and the facts recited support the result.
Opinion
Filed 5/17/16 P. v. Goldschmied 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, D069321
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN341983)
COLBY GOLDSCHMIED,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Michael J. Popkins, Judge. Affirmed.
James M. Crawford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. I.
INTRODUCTION
Colby Goldschmied pled guilty to one count of driving under the influence of alcohol causing injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a))1 (count 1), admitted that he caused injury to more than one victim (§ 23558), and admitted that he personally inflicted great bodily injury during the commission of the offense (Pen. Code, § 1192.7, subd.
(c)(8)). The trial court entered an order placing Goldschmied on formal probation subject to various conditions, including that he serve 120 days in the custody of the sheriff and pay various fines and fees.
Appointed appellate counsel filed a brief presenting no argument for reversal, but inviting this court to review the record for error in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). After having independently reviewed the entire record for error as required by Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) and Wende, we affirm.
1 Unless otherwise specified, all subsequent statutory references are to the Vehicle Code. 2 II.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. Factual background2 While under the influence of alcohol, Goldschmied committed a violation of section 21801, subdivision (a),3 which caused an accident that injured more than one person. Goldschmied caused great bodily injury during the commission of the offense.
B. The charged offenses The People filed an amended information in June 2015, charging Goldschmied with driving under the influence of alcohol causing injury (§ 23153, subd. (a)) (count 1), driving with a measurable blood alcohol level causing injury (§ 23153, subd. (b))
(count 2), hit and run with injury (§ 20001, subd. (a)) (count 3), and driving with a suspended license (§ 14601.1, subd. (a)) (count 4). With respect to counts 1 and 2, the People alleged that Goldschmied caused injury to more than one victim (§ 23558), and personally inflicted great bodily injury during the commission of the offenses (Pen. Code, § 1192.7, subd. (c)(8)).
2 Because there was no trial in this case, we base our statement of facts on the Goldschmied's admission with respect to the factual basis of his plea at the plea hearing. 3 Section 21801, subdivision (a) provides: "The driver of a vehicle intending to turn to the left or to complete a U-turn upon a highway, or to turn left into public or private property, or an alley, shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles approaching from the opposite direction which are close enough to constitute a hazard at any time during the turning movement, and shall continue to yield the right-of-way to the approaching vehicles until the left turn or U-turn can be made with reasonable safety." 3 C. The plea The People and Goldschmied entered into a plea agreement in August 2015.
Goldschmied agreed to plead guilty to one count of driving under the influence of alcohol causing injury (§ 23153, subd. (a)) (count 1), admit that he caused injury to more than one victim (§ 23558), and admit that he personally inflicted great bodily injury during the commission of the offense (Pen. Code, § 1192.7, subd. (c)(8)) in exchange for the dismissal of the balance of the charges and allegations, and an indicated sentence of no greater than 120 days in local custody.4 The court held a plea hearing and accepted Goldschmied's plea of guilty as provided for in the plea agreement.
During the plea hearing, in describing the terms of the plea agreement, the court stated:
"I indicated to your attorney that based on your prior history and the facts of this case that I felt a fair and appropriate sentence would be a 120-day lid. That means you would not get more than 120 days. You could get less than that."
D. The trial court's probation order The court held a hearing on November 16, 2015. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court entered an order placing Goldschmied on formal probation subject to various 4 The agreement also indicates that the court "will consider CPAC." During the plea hearing, the trial court stated that this provision meant that the court "would give consideration to the CPAC electronic surveillance program for any custody time that I may impose." 4 conditions, including that he serve 120 days in the custody of the sheriff and pay various fines and fees. The fines and fees included a court operations assessment fee ($40), a criminal conviction fee ($30), a criminal justice administration fee ($154), an alcohol- drug assessment program fee ($100), an alcohol prevention penalty assessment ($50), a restitution fine and surcharge ($330) and an emergency medical air transport fee ($4).
The court also imposed and stayed a probation revocation fine of $300.
E. The appeal Goldschmied timely appealed from the order granting probation.
III.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings in the trial court. Counsel presented no argument for reversal but invited this court to review the record for error in accordance with Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.
Pursuant to Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, counsel identified the following as possible, but not arguable, issues:
"1. Whether [Goldschmied's] sentence was compliant with the terms and conditions of the plea agreement?
"2. Whether the trial court properly set all mandatory fines and fees?"
After this court received counsel's brief, we gave Goldschmied the opportunity to file a supplemental brief. Goldschmied has not filed a brief.
5 A review of the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the issues suggested by counsel, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Goldschmied has been adequately represented by counsel on this appeal.
IV.
DISPOSITION
The order granting probation is affirmed.
AARON, J.
WE CONCUR:
HALLER, Acting P. J.
IRION, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12