People v. Williamson CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D069155 · 2016-06-22 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD261969
Trial judges: Kathleen M. Lewis; Polly H. Shamoon
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Gilbert Nares, Cynthia Aaron

Analysis

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

The trial court denied the defendant's motion to reduce his conviction to a misdemeanor following a plea agreement. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after conducting an independent review of the record under People v. Wende and finding no reasonably arguable issues for reversal.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of motion to reduce conviction to a misdemeanor “Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to reduce the conviction to a misdemeanor.”	abuse of discretion	not reached	unsure The appellate court did not analyze the merits of the trial court's ruling because it determined, after an independent review of the record, that the issue was not 'reasonably arguable' for reversal under the Wende/Anders framework.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to identify any 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 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to file a brief identifying potential issues while arguing they are frivolous, requiring court review.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the Wende/Anders framework for appointed counsel appeals. It accurately reflects that the court performed the required independent review and found no arguable errors.

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 Williamson's guilty plea to felony throwing a bottle at a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 23110, subd. (b)), imposed the stipulated three-year prison term, and summarily denied his post-sentencing motion to reduce the conviction to a misdemeanor. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief, the defendant 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 post-sentencing motion to reduce the felony conviction to a misdemeanor “Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to reduce the conviction to a misdemeanor.”	abuse of discretion	correct	agree with court The opinion does not analyze the motion on the merits, but the result is defensible: the defendant stipulated to a three-year prison term as part of a negotiated plea, so a post-judgment reduction would have altered the bargain, and Vehicle Code section 23110, subdivision (b) is punishable only by state prison, leaving no apparent Penal Code section 17(b) discretion to exercise. Nothing in the opinion suggests an abuse of discretion.
Acceptance of guilty plea and imposition of the stipulated three-year prison sentence “Consistent with the plea agreement the court sentenced Appellant to a three-year term.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The court conducted the independent record review required by Wende and Anders and found no arguable issue. The sentence matched the negotiated disposition, the defendant admitted the elements at the change of plea, and the remaining count and prison priors were dismissed as agreed, so nothing in the recited record suggests sentencing error.

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 error before affirming.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous must so advise the court and may identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the Wende/Anders procedure: counsel identified a possible issue, the defendant was invited to brief, and the court states it reviewed the entire record and found no arguable issue. It is sparse—it does not explain why the section 17(b) denial was not arguable (e.g., stipulated prison term or straight-felony status of the offense)—but Wende opinions need not do so and the result is plainly defensible.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 6/22/16 P. v. Williamson 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, D069155

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD261969)

GUY O. WILLIAMSON, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Polly H.

Shamoon and Kathleen M. Lewis, Judges. Affirmed.

Jan B. Norman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

As part of a plea agreement, Guy O. Williamson entered a guilty plea to one count of throwing a glass bottle at a vehicle capable of doing serious bodily injury (Veh. Code, § 23110, subd. (b)). The remaining count and the seven alleged prison priors were dismissed. The parties agreed to a sentence of three years in prison. Consistent with the plea agreement the court sentenced Appellant to a three-year term.

After sentencing, Appellant filed a motion to reduce his conviction to a misdemeanor. The motion was summarily denied.

Appellant has filed a timely notice of appeal.

Appellate counsel has filed a brief in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), indicating counsel has been 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 invited Appellant to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

In his change of plea, Appellant admitted that he threw a glass bottle that hit a car and that it was capable of inflicting great bodily injury.

DISCUSSION

As we have noted, appellate counsel has not identified any reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel has asked this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. In compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) and in order to assist the court in its review, appellate counsel has identified the following possible, but not arguable issue:

Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to reduce the conviction to a misdemeanor.

2 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 been able to identify any reasonably arguable issue for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Appellant on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

NARES, J.

AARON, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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