People v. Mills CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D070015 · 2016-08-03 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD262864
Trial judge: Timothy R. Walsh
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Judith L. Haller (author), Alex C. McDonald, Cynthia Aaron

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T05:43Z · confidence low

The trial court accepted a negotiated guilty plea, denied probation, and sentenced the defendant to 32 months in state prison after doubling the base term for a prior strike. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, finding no reasonably arguable issues of error.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of probation and imposition of a 32-month state prison sentence “As a result, probation was denied and defendant was sentenced to 16 months in state prison, doubled to 32 months for the strike.”	abuse of discretion	not reached	unsure The opinion does not contain a substantive analysis of the sentencing decision. The court states that a review of the record 'has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues,' thereby affirming the judgment without addressing the specific arguments regarding probation or the strike prior. Because the court did not apply the abuse of discretion standard or provide reasoning for the sentencing outcome, the appellate view is effectively that the issue was not reasonably arguable.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to conduct an independent review of the record for error when no issues are raised in the brief.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to file a brief identifying potentially arguable issues while arguing for affirmance.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for cases where appointed counsel identifies no arguable issues. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' opinion because it provides no substantive legal analysis for the seven specific issues identified by counsel, relying solely on the conclusory statement that no reasonably arguable issues exist.

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

Following a negotiated guilty plea to unlawfully taking or driving a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) with an admitted strike prior, the trial court granted the People's motion to strike the section 666.5 enhancement, denied defendant's motion to dismiss his strike based on his extensive criminal history, denied probation, and sentenced him to 32 months in state prison. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief; the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no reasonably arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of defendant's motion to dismiss (strike) his prior strike conviction “Defendant moved to strike his strike, but due to defendant's extensive criminal history the court denied his request.”	abuse of discretion	correct	agree with court A trial court's refusal to dismiss a strike is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and reliance on an extensive criminal history is a recognized basis for finding the defendant within the spirit of the Three Strikes law. The opinion recites the basis for the ruling and, after Wende review, found no arguable issue; nothing in the recited record suggests the court misunderstood its discretion.
Denial of probation and imposition of a 32-month state prison term (16-month low term doubled for the strike) “As a result, probation was denied and defendant was sentenced to 16 months in state prison, doubled to 32 months for the strike.”	abuse of discretion	correct	agree with court With a strike prior left intact, defendant was statutorily ineligible for probation and the doubled term was mandatory under section 667, subdivision (e)(1); the court imposed the low term, so no sentencing error appears on the face of the opinion.
Validity of the guilty plea, appeal waiver, factual basis, and custody credit calculation (issues flagged by Wende counsel) “A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the issues referred to by appellate counsel, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues.”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion does not describe the plea colloquy or the credit computation, so the reader cannot independently verify these points; the recited facts (defendant found in the driver's seat of a GPS-tracked stolen van with keys in the ignition) plainly support a factual basis for the plea. The conclusion is plausible but rests on the court's unexplained record review.

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 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.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion follows the required Wende/Anders procedure, recites the facts, procedure, and the issues counsel identified, and states that independent review disclosed no arguable issue, which is all that is required in this posture. It does not explain its analysis of any individual issue (for example the Romero standard under Carmony or whether a certificate of probable cause limited plea-based challenges), but a Wende affirmance is not required to do so.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

Filed 8/3/16 P. v. Mills 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, D070015

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD262864)

ROBERT MILLS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Timothy R. Walsh, Judge. Affirmed.

Leslie Ann Rose, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Robert Mills was charged with unlawfully taking or driving a stolen vehicle (Veh.

Code, § 10851, subd. (a); count 1), and receiving a stolen vehicle (Pen. Code, § 496d;1 1 All subsequent unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code. count 2). Enhancements related to his prior convictions for vehicle theft (§ 666.5, subd.

(a)) attached to both counts. Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement entered October 23, 2015, defendant pled guilty to count 1, admitted the section 666.5, subdivision (a)

allegation as to that count, and admitted a strike prior. The remaining count and enhancements were dismissed.

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURE

In the early morning hours of July 2, 2015, San Diego police officers responded to a report of a stolen commercial utility van belonging to Professional Maintenance Systems (PMS). Allison Erickson, the controller of PMS, had used a GPS program to track the vehicle and informed police of its location. The officers located the stolen vehicle, performed a "hot stop" and found defendant seated in the driver's seat with the van's keys still in the ignition. Cleaning equipment was located in the van and defendant was wearing a shirt bearing the PMS insignia. Erickson verified defendant was not a PMS employee.

At defendant's change of plea hearing on October 23, 2015, defendant pled guilty to count 1 (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)), admitted a strike prior (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)), and left sentencing to the court. Count 2 and the remaining enhancements were dismissed. At the sentencing hearing, the People moved to strike the remaining section 666.5, subdivision (a) enhancement, to which the court agreed. Defendant moved to strike his strike, but due to defendant's extensive criminal history the court denied his request. As a result, probation was denied and defendant was sentenced to 16 months in state prison, doubled to 32 months for the strike.

2 Defendant appeals.

DISCUSSION

Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the proceedings below.

Counsel presents no argument for reversal but asks that this court review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel has identified the following issues that "might arguably support the appeal" (Anders v. California (1967)

386 U.S. 738, 744): (1) whether defendant's waiver of his right to appeal was valid; (2)

whether defendant's guilty plea was constitutionally valid; (3) whether the court abused its discretion in denying probation to defendant; (4) whether the court abused its discretion in failing to dismiss defendant's strike prior; (5) whether a sufficient factual basis for defendant's guilty plea exists; (6) whether defendant's custody credits had been calculated correctly; and (7) whether defendant's attorney was ineffective. We offered defendant the opportunity to file a brief on his own behalf, and he has not responded.

A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the issues referred to by appellate counsel, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Competent counsel has represented defendant on this appeal.

3 DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

HALLER, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

MCDONALD, J.

AARON, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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