People v. Kane CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D068888 · 2016-06-09 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCN342043
Trial judge: Michael J. Popkins
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Gilbert Nares (author), Richard D. Huffman, Sr., O'Rourke

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T05:48Z · confidence high

The trial court accepted Kane's guilty plea to robbery and sentenced him to two years in state prison, dismissing the strike prior allegation pursuant to a plea agreement. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent Wende review, finding the plea and waiver of appeal rights were valid.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Validity of the guilty plea “The reporter's transcript of the change of plea hearing shows that Kane understood the nature of the proceeding, responded appropriately to the court's questions, understood his constitutional rights and voluntarily waived them, understood the nature of the charges and the consequences of his plea, and freely and voluntarily pleaded guilty to the robbery charge in exchange for the striking of the prior strike allegation and imposition of the stipulated two-year prison sentence.”	de novo	correct	agree with court agree with court
Validity of the waiver of the right to appeal “We also conclude his waiver of the right to appeal is valid.”	de novo	correct	agree with court agree with court

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to conduct an independent review of the record for error and file a brief identifying any reasonably arguable issues.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to file a brief identifying potentially meritorious issues when none are found, allowing the court to independently review the record.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly applies the Wende/Anders framework to review the validity of the plea and waiver. The court relies on the specific findings made by the trial court during the change of plea hearing to support its conclusion that the plea was voluntary and knowing.

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

The trial court accepted Kane's guilty plea to robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) after finding the plea knowing and voluntary with a factual basis, dismissed the remaining allegations including a strike prior, and imposed the stipulated low term of two years. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief, Kane filed a supplemental brief disputing his guilt and the validity of the plea, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, held the plea and appeal waiver valid, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Acceptance of guilty plea as knowing, intelligent, and voluntary with a factual basis (constitutional validity of the plea) “The reporter's transcript of the change of plea hearing shows that Kane understood the nature of the proceeding, responded appropriately to the court's questions, understood his constitutional rights and voluntarily waived them”	de novo	correct	agree with court The court conducted the independent record review Wende requires and pointed to the plea colloquy showing advisement and waiver of rights, understanding of consequences, and a factual basis (Kane's initialed admission that he took property by force). Kane's supplemental claims that he was 'only shoplifting' and that the police report was false are factual disputes forgone by the plea, not grounds to set it aside on direct appeal. The court's conclusion is supported by what it describes in the record, though the opinion does not address whether Kane obtained a certificate of probable cause under section 1237.5, which is a prerequisite to challenging plea validity on appeal.
Validity of Kane's waiver of the right to appeal the stipulated sentence “We also conclude his waiver of the right to appeal is valid.”	de novo	correct	agree with court Kane initialed a plea-form provision waiving the right to appeal 'any sentence stipulated herein,' and the court found the overall plea colloquy showed a knowing and voluntary waiver of rights. The opinion's treatment is conclusory—it offers no separate analysis of the appeal waiver—but nothing in the recited record suggests the waiver was involuntary, and Kane raised no sentencing claim in any event, so the conclusion is defensible on this record.

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 to determine whether any arguable issue exists.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal frivolous may file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, and the court must then examine the record itself.
missed: People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084 — A defendant who pleads guilty may not challenge the validity of the plea on appeal without obtaining a certificate of probable cause under Penal Code section 1237.5, a requirement courts must apply strictly.
missed: People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68 — A challenge to a sentence that was an integral part of a negotiated plea is in substance a challenge to the plea's validity and requires a certificate of probable cause; a knowing and voluntary waiver of appellate rights in a plea agreement is enforceable.
missed: People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 — In a Wende appeal, the Court of Appeal's opinion should briefly describe the facts and procedural history and, where the defendant files a supplemental brief, address the contentions raised in it.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court performed the required Wende independent review, addressed the two Anders issues counsel flagged and the contentions in Kane's supplemental brief, and tied its plea-validity conclusion to the change-of-plea transcript, so the affirmance is defensible. It did not, however, mention whether Kane obtained a certificate of probable cause (Pen. Code, § 1237.5; Mendez; Panizzon), which governs whether his attack on the plea was even cognizable, and its treatment of the appeal-waiver issue is a single conclusory sentence.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 6/9/16 P. v. Kane 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, D068888

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN342043)

JEFFREY ELIAS KANE,

Defendant and Appellant.

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

Popkins, Judge. Affirmed.

Boyce & Schaefer and Benjamin Kington, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Counsel for defendant Jeffrey Elias Kane has filed a brief asking this court to independently review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In February 2015 Kane was charged in a criminal complaint with one count of robbery (Pen. Code,1 § 211). The complaint also alleged Kane had served five prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)) and had suffered a prior strike conviction within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12 & 668). Kane initialed a provision on the form under which he waived (among other things) his right to raise on appeal "any sentence stipulated herein." Kane also initialed a statement that he "did unlawfully by force take property from [the victim]."

The trial court accepted Kane's guilty plea after finding that Kane understood his constitutional rights and voluntarily waived them, that his plea was freely and voluntarily made, that he understood the nature of the charges and the consequences of his plea, and that there was a factual basis for the guilty plea. The court granted the People's motion to dismiss the balance of the complaint, including the strike prior allegation.

On July 14, 2015, pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, the court sentenced Kane to the lower term of two years in state prison for his robbery conviction with credit for time he had served in local custody.

Kane filed in propria persona a notice of appeal on September 16, 2015, stating that he "[g]reatly [felt]" he was not guilty of robbery because he "was only shoplifting,"

and that he "took the deal out of she[e]r desperation."

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 DISCUSSION Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) summarizing the proceedings below and indicating he was unable to find any reasonably arguable issues for reversal or modification of the judgment on appeal. Kane's counsel has identified two possible, but not arguable, issues under Anders: (1) "Is [Kane's] guilty plea constitutionally valid?,"

and (2) "Was the waiver of the right to appeal valid?"

We granted Kane permission to file a brief on his own behalf. On April 8, 2016, Kane filed in propria persona a handwritten brief in which he states that he "greatly do[es] not agree [his] plea of guilt is constitutionally valid" and that he believes he is not guilty of robbery. He asserts that "[t]he Police report is nothing more than a callous lye [sic]" and that he was injured when he was "tackled by loss prevention." He also asserts that a witness told the police officer that he (Kane) did not push or swing at the loss prevention employee "[b]ut there was no mention of this person in the police report." He claims he "took the [plea] deal out of fear" because he "could not mentally understand the strain of prejudice brought by the Police behaviors." He further asserts that he is "mentally dissabled [sic] with brain damage and mental retardation."

We have independently reviewed the record under Wende and considered the possible issues identified by Kane's counsel. We have found no reasonably arguable issues for reversal or modification of the judgment. The reporter's transcript of the change of plea hearing shows that Kane understood the nature of the proceeding, responded appropriately to the court's questions, understood his constitutional rights and 3 voluntarily waived them, understood the nature of the charges and the consequences of his plea, and freely and voluntarily pleaded guilty to the robbery charge in exchange for the striking of the prior strike allegation and imposition of the stipulated two-year prison sentence. We conclude Kane's guilty plea is constitutionally valid. We also conclude his waiver of the right to appeal is valid.

For all of the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment. Kane's appellate counsel has competently represented him in this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NARES, J. WE CONCUR:

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

O'ROURKE, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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