People v. Garrett CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D069506 · 2016-07-08 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD263047
Trial judge: David M. Gill
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Cynthia Aaron (author), Alex C. McDonald, Judith L. Haller

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T05:45Z · confidence high

The trial court convicted the defendant of corporal injury to a romantic partner and false imprisonment, sentencing him to six years in prison based on a prior serious felony enhancement. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after 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
Independent review of the record for error pursuant to People v. Wende “We have independently reviewed the record under Wende and have found no reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal.”	de novo	not reached	agree with court The court applied the standard Wende review, which requires the appellate court to independently examine the record for any error, whether or not raised by counsel. The court found no reasonably arguable issues, which is the correct procedural outcome when the record does not support a claim of error.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appellate counsel to file a brief identifying any arguable issues and the court to independently review the record for error when counsel finds none.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to withdraw from an appeal where no arguable issues exist, requiring a brief and court review.
relied: People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622 — Supports the standard of stating evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment.
relied: People v. Dawkins (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 991 — Supports the standard of stating evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment.
relied: People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 — Establishes the discretionary framework for striking prior serious felony enhancements.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for cases where appointed counsel identifies no arguable issues. It lists the potential issues considered and concludes none are reasonably arguable, which is the required standard for affirmance in this context.

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

A San Diego jury convicted Garrett of corporal injury to a romantic partner (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)) and felony false imprisonment, acquitted him of criminal threats and witness intimidation, and after he admitted a prior strike the court imposed six years (middle term doubled) with a stayed term on the false imprisonment count, denied his Romero motion, admitted prior domestic violence under Evidence Code section 1109, and awarded victim restitution. Appellate counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief listing 12 possible issues; the defendant filed no supplemental brief; the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Judgment of conviction and sentence as a whole (independent Wende review of the entire record) “We have independently reviewed the record under Wende and have considered the possible issues identified by Garrett's counsel. We have found no reasonably arguable issues for reversal.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The court followed the Wende/Anders procedure: counsel filed a no-issue brief identifying possible issues, the defendant was invited to file a supplemental brief and did not, and the court independently reviewed the record and recited the facts and procedural history as People v. Kelly requires. The recited facts (strangulation causing bruising and vomiting, witnesses corroborating the attack, the victim compelled to turn the car around under threat) comfortably support both convictions and the sentencing choices described. Nothing in the opinion suggests any arguable error.
Sufficiency of evidence of a 'traumatic condition' under section 273.5 and of felony false imprisonment (counsel's possible issues 1 and 2) “Kinsman had bruising on her neck, but she declined medical attention.”	substantial evidence	correct	agree with court Bruising on the neck and repeated strangulation causing pain, inability to breathe, and vomiting constitute a traumatic condition under the statute; the threat to beat the victim and leave her on the roadside if she did not turn the car around, plus shoving her against the window, supplies the violence or menace needed for felony false imprisonment. The court did not analyze these points expressly but the recited facts support its implicit conclusion that they are not arguable.
Admission of uncharged prior domestic violence incident under Evidence Code section 1109 over an Evidence Code section 352 objection (counsel's possible issues 7–9) “Evidence of this incident, for which Garrett was not charged, was admitted at trial under Evidence Code section 1109.”	abuse of discretion	correct	unsure The opinion identifies the issue but gives no analysis of the trial court's dating-relationship finding or its section 352 weighing. The facts recited (a prior assault on the same romantic partner a short time earlier, corroborated by a neighbor) make admission under section 1109 unsurprising, but without the court's reasoning I cannot independently confirm the ruling beyond the court's implicit conclusion.
Denial of Romero motion to strike prior serious felony conviction under section 1385 (counsel's possible issue 10) “"Did the court arguably abuse its discretion under section 1385 when the court denied Garrett's Romero[3] motion?"”	abuse of discretion	correct	unsure The opinion lists the Romero issue as not arguable but provides no detail about the prior conviction, the defendant's history, or the trial court's reasons. The record as described is insufficient for me to evaluate the ruling independently.
Award of victim restitution to the Victim Compensation Board for counseling, stipulated to by defense counsel (counsel's possible issues 11 and 12) “"Did the court arguably err in awarding victim restitution to the Victim's Compensation Claims Board for victim's counseling?"”	unclear	correct	unsure Counsel's own framing notes a defense stipulation, which would forfeit most challenges to the amount; the opinion does not discuss the award. There is nothing in the opinion to suggest error, but equally nothing to confirm the basis of the award.

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 frivolous may so advise the court but must identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
relied: People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622 — On appeal the facts are stated in the light most favorable to the judgment.
relied: People v. Dawkins (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 991 — Appellate court recites the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment.
relied: People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 — Trial courts have discretion under section 1385 to strike a prior strike conviction in furtherance of justice.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly applies the Wende/Anders procedure, invites a supplemental brief, recites facts and procedural history, lists counsel's possible issues, and affirms after independent review; the facts recited amply support the convictions. It offers no substantive analysis of any of the 12 possible issues, which is customary and permissible in a Wende affirmance but leaves the reader unable to verify the discretionary rulings on propensity evidence, Romero, and restitution.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

Filed 7/8/16 P. v. Garrett 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, D069506

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD263047)

JONATHAN KEITH GARRETT,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, David M.

Gill, Judge. Affirmed.

Sylvia W. Beckham, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

A jury convicted Jonathan Keith Garrett of corporal injury to a romantic partner (Penal Code, § 273.5, subd. (a))1 and false imprisonment by violence or menace 1 Further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. (§§ 236, 237, subd. (a)). The jury found Garrett not guilty of making a criminal threat (§ 422) and witness intimidation (§ 136.1, subd. (b)(1)).

Following Garrett's admission of a prior serious felony conviction under section 667, subdivision (d), the court sentenced Garrett to a determinate term of six years imprisonment. The six-year sentence represented the middle term of three years for the corporal injury conviction, doubled under section 667, subdivision (e)(1). The court also sentenced Garrett to the middle term of four years for his conviction for false imprisonment, which it stayed under section 654.

Garrett appeals. Garrett's appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) stating that she is unable to find any reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Garrett's counsel asks this court to review the record independently for error, as required by Wende. We granted Garrett the opportunity to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. He has not responded. We have independently reviewed the record under Wende and have found no reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal. We therefore affirm.

FACTS

For purposes of this section, we state the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment. (See People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 690; People v. Dawkins (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 991, 994.)

Garrett and Alexis Kinsman met through mutual friends and corresponded on Facebook. After a few weeks, they began a romantic relationship. One night, Garrett 2 cooked dinner, and he became angry with Kinsman because she did not finish eating her food. Garrett threw Kinsman against a wall and threatened to kill her. Kinsman ran out of her apartment and encountered a neighbor. Kinsman asked the neighbor, Seth Woolsey, to call police. Woolsey asked what was wrong, and Kinsman said her boyfriend had attacked her. Kinsman touched her head and showed Woolsey blood on her hand. Garrett fled. Police arrived, and Kinsman told them Garrett's first name. She was unable to provide any other information about him.2 Kinsman eventually forgave Garrett and began to see him again romantically. He was irrationally jealous, however, and frequently accused her of cheating on him with other men. On the evening of July 21, 2015, Garrett was at Kinsman's apartment.

Kinsman went out to buy a pack of cigarettes. Garrett became upset when Kinsman returned because she did not buy Garrett's brand. Garrett called Kinsman names, and she became frightened. She went into her bedroom and texted her mother.

Garrett accused Kinsman of texting another man. He took Kinsman's phone and began to strangle her. Kinsman was in pain and could not breathe. She vomited a few times. Garrett stopped and apologized, but then he began to strangle her again. Garrett alternately apologized and strangled Kinsman several times. At one point, Garrett put on some cloth gloves and said, "Bitch, this is how I kill bitches like you." The attacks continued for at least 15 to 20 minutes.

2 Evidence of this incident, for which Garrett was not charged, was admitted at trial under Evidence Code section 1109. 3 Eventually Garrett appeared to calm down. Kinsman agreed to drive Garrett to an appointment in order to get him out of her apartment. On the way, Kinsman stopped at a store to buy Garrett the cigarettes that he wanted. While they were driving, Garrett asked to stay at Kinsman's apartment again that night. Kinsman said she did not think that was a good idea, and Garrett became angry again. He threatened to beat her up and leave her on the side of the road if she did not turn the car around. Kinsman turned back to her apartment.

When they arrived at Kinsman's apartment, she asked for her phone back. Garrett said he would give Kinsman her phone back if she unlocked her apartment door.

Kinsman was afraid to go back inside the apartment with Garrett, so she went to a neighbor's apartment and knocked on the window. Garrett followed her. Kinsman yelled, "Call 911, he's choking me!" The neighbor saw Garrett shove Kinsman against the window. He called police.

Kinsman ran to a nearby convenience store. Garrett followed her. Kinsman asked for her phone again, but Garrett threw it to the ground. Inside the convenience store, Kinsman spoke to the clerk. The clerk handed a phone to Kinsman, and she dialed 911.

The clerk noticed that Garrett was staring intensely at Kinsman. Kinsman told the 911 operator that Garrett had choked her. Garrett left the store, and police arrived soon afterward.

Kinsman had bruising on her neck, but she declined medical attention. She asked the police officers to accompany her back to her apartment. Once she arrived at the 4 apartment, she gathered some belongings and went to stay with her mother. Police officers were unable to locate Garrett.

The next day, Kinsman went back to her apartment during her lunch break to get some clothing. She found Garrett there and called police. Police officers arrived and arrested Garrett.

At trial, Kinsman, her neighbor, the convenience store clerk, and a police officer testified. Garrett did not testify. Garrett's counsel questioned Kinsman's credibility and argued that the prosecution had not met its burden of proof.

DISCUSSION

As we have noted, Garrett's appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, stating that she was unable to find any reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Garrett's counsel has identified 12 possible, but not arguable, issues under Anders: (1) "Was there arguably insufficient evidence of a traumatic condition?" (2) "Was there arguably insufficient evidence of felony false imprisonment?" (3) "Did the court arguably err in failing to sua sponte instruct on the lesser included offense of misdemeanor domestic battery?"

(4) "Did the court arguably err in failing to provide a unanimity instruction on the charge of false imprisonment?" (5) "If the court erred in failing to provide a unanimity instruction on the charge of false imprisonment, was the error arguably prejudicial?"

(6) "Did the court arguably err in failing to sua sponte instruct on the lesser offense of misdemeanor false imprisonment?" (7) "Did the court arguably err in finding [a]

preponderance of evidence [to support] a 'dating relationship' for purposes of allowing 5 prior domestic violence evidence to prove propensity?" (8) "Did the court arguably abuse its discretion in overruling the defense objection under Evidence Code section 352 to the propensity evidence?" (9) "If the court's [Evidence Code section] 352 ruling was not an abuse of discretion, is review of the issue of deprivation of due process by using propensity evidence as proof of guilt arguably forfeited by failure to object?" (10) "Did the court arguably abuse its discretion under section 1385 when the court denied Garrett's Romero[3] motion?" (11) "Did the court arguably err in awarding victim restitution to the Victim's Compensation Claims Board for victim's counseling?" (12) "If the court arguably erred in awarding victim restitution to the Victim's Compensation Claims Board for victim's counseling, was review of this error waived by defense counsel's stipulation?"

We have independently reviewed the record under Wende and have considered the possible issues identified by Garrett's counsel. We have found no reasonably arguable issues for reversal. Competent counsel has represented Garrett in this appeal.

3 People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497. 6 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

AARON, J.

WE CONCUR:

HALLER, Acting P. J.

MCDONALD, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Dawkins B245611 · 2014-10-21
People v. Osband No. S005233 · 1996-07-29
People v. Superior Court (Romero) S045097 · 1996-06-20
People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12