People v. Rico CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D068997 · 2016-06-16 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCE343369
Trial judge: Daniel B. Goldstein
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Alex C. McDonald, Joan K. Irion

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T05:47Z · confidence high

The trial court accepted a guilty plea from the defendant and sentenced him to 16 years in prison. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no reasonably arguable issues for reversal after an independent review of the record pursuant to Wende and Anders.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Affirmance of the judgment (guilty plea and sentence) “We have not discovered any reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal.”	de novo	not reached	agree with court The court affirmed the judgment because the defendant failed to obtain a certificate of probable cause to challenge the plea and failed to object to the sentence in the trial court, thereby waiving those issues on appeal. The court independently reviewed the record under Wende and Anders and found no other reasonably arguable errors.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Appellate counsel must review the record for error when no issues are raised, and the court must independently review the record.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appellate counsel must file a brief identifying any possible, but not arguable, issues for reversal.
relied: People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68 — A defendant who does not obtain a certificate of probable cause is precluded from challenging the validity of a guilty plea on appeal.
relied: People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331 — A defendant who does not object to sentencing choices in the trial court is precluded from raising challenges to the sentence on appeal.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly applies the waiver rules for guilty pleas and sentencing errors, and it fulfills the Wende/Anders duty by independently reviewing the entire record. The court explicitly notes the record is brief and confirms it reviewed all of it, satisfying the procedural requirements for an unpublished Wende appeal.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

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

The trial court accepted Manuel Rico's open guilty plea to three counts of lewd acts on a child under 14 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)) and two counts of forcible lewd acts (§ 288, subd. (b)(1)) and sentenced him to 16 years in prison. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief, Rico filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Acceptance of the guilty plea (any challenge to the validity of the plea) “Rico did not obtain a certificate of probable cause from the trial court and is thus precluded from challenging the plea on appeal. (People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 74-76.)”	de novo	not reached	agree with court Under section 1237.5 and Panizzon, a defendant who pleads guilty may not attack the validity of the plea on appeal without a certificate of probable cause. Rico obtained none and made no motion to withdraw the plea, so the court correctly treated any plea challenge as not cognizable. The opinion's reasoning and authority match settled law.
Sentence of 16 years in prison (sentencing choices) “Rico did not object in the trial court to any of the court's sentencing choices. Again he is precluded from raising any challenge to the sentence on this appeal. (People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 351-353.)”	de novo	not reached	agree with court Scott holds that complaints about the manner in which the trial court exercised its sentencing discretion are forfeited absent a contemporaneous objection. The court's statement that Rico is precluded from raising 'any' challenge is slightly overbroad, because an unauthorized sentence may be corrected at any time, but the court's independent Wende review of the entire record would have caught a legally unauthorized sentence, and the 16-year term is within the statutory ranges for the counts pleaded. The result is therefore sound.
Judgment as a whole (independent Wende/Anders review of the record) “We have not discovered any reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal.”	de novo	correct	agree with court The court performed the independent record review Wende requires, noted counsel's failure to identify possible issues under Anders, and nonetheless completed its own review because the record was brief. Nothing in the opinion suggests an arguable issue was overlooked, though the opinion discloses almost nothing about the record itself, so an outside reader cannot verify the review beyond the two procedural bars discussed.

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 arguable issues before affirming.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous should file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, and the court must then examine the record.
relied: People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68 — A defendant who pleads guilty may not challenge the validity of the plea on appeal without first obtaining a certificate of probable cause under section 1237.5.
relied: People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331 — Claims concerning the trial court's discretionary sentencing choices are forfeited on appeal if not raised by objection in the trial court.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion correctly applies the certificate-of-probable-cause bar and the Scott forfeiture rule, and it performs the independent review Wende requires despite counsel's incomplete Anders brief. It is thin on facts and states the sentencing forfeiture rule more broadly than Scott supports (unauthorized sentences are not forfeited), but on an open plea with a sentence within statutory range the result is defensible.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 6/16/16 P. v. Rico 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, D068997

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCE343369)

MANUEL RICO,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Daniel B.

Goldstein, Judge. Affirmed.

Andrea S. Bitar, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In this case, without the benefit of a plea agreement, Manual Rico pleaded guilty to all of the charges in the information. Specifically, he pleaded guilty to three counts of lewd acts on a child under the age of 14 (Pen. Code,1 § 288, subd. (a)) and two counts of lewd acts on a child under the age of 14 by force or fear (§ 288, subd. (b)(1)).

The court sentenced Rico to a term of 16 years in prison.

Rico filed a timely notice of appeal, but did not obtain a certificate of probable cause (§ 1237.5).

Appellate counsel has filed a brief indicating she has not been able to discover any reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel asks this court to review the record for error. We offered Rico the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The change of plea form only indicates that Rico admitted to performing lewd acts upon a child under the age of 14.

DISCUSSION

Appellate counsel has not fully complied with Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, in that she has not identified any possible, but not arguable issues for reversal. However, the record is brief and we have reviewed all of it. We are satisfied we can fully perform our duty of review as mandated by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, notwithstanding the lack of assistance from appellate counsel.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. 2 We start with the possibility of a challenge to the guilty plea. Rico did not obtain a certificate of probable cause from the trial court and is thus precluded from challenging the plea on appeal. (People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 74-76.) Nor did Rico bring a motion to withdraw the guilty pleas.

With regard to the sentence, Rico did not object in the trial court to any of the court's sentencing choices. Again he is precluded from raising any challenge to the sentence on this appeal. (People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 351-353.)

As we have stated, we have reviewed the entire record as mandated by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738. We have not discovered any reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Although we are critical of appellate counsel's failure to fully comply with Anders, we are satisfied that counsel has provided Rico with competent representation on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

McDONALD, J.

IRION, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Panizzon S046141 · 1996-04-18
People v. Scott No. S037757 · 1994-12-30
People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12