People v. Wilson CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCN346525
- Trial judge
- Michael J. Popkins
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Cynthia Aaron (author), Alex C. McDonald
Analysis
The trial court imposed a probation condition prohibiting the defendant from remaining in the presence of persons with firearms or having ready access to them, over the defendant's objection. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende found no reasonably arguable appellate issues.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Imposition of probation condition 14(a) prohibiting contact with firearms and persons possessing them.“A review of the record pursuant to 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 | not reached | unsure The court did not apply a specific standard of review (such as abuse of discretion) to the probation condition; instead, it relied on the Wende/Anders framework to determine if the issue was 'reasonably arguable.' Because the court found no reasonably arguable issue, it did not substantively analyze the legality of the condition under People v. Superior Court (Ramadan) or other relevant authorities. The opinion is silent on whether the condition was reasonable or supported by the record, making the legal basis for affirmance opaque. |
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.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to withdraw from an appeal by filing a brief identifying any arguable issues.
- relied: People v. Forrest (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 1074 — Source of the verbatim language for the probation condition imposed by the trial court.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound in following Wende and Anders protocols, including notifying the defendant of the right to file a supplemental brief. However, it is substantively thin because it fails to explain why the identified issue regarding the probation condition was not 'reasonably arguable,' leaving the reader without insight into the legal merits of the condition's validity.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionFollowing Daniel Wilson's guilty plea to stalking with a court order in effect (Pen. Code, § 646.9, subd. (b)) under a stipulated plea agreement, the San Diego Superior Court suspended execution of a two-year prison term, placed him on formal probation with 365 days local custody deemed satisfied upon completion of residential treatment, and imposed over defense objection a firearm/weapon-presence probation condition (No. 14) drawn verbatim from People v. Forrest. Appointed counsel filed a Wende brief identifying the probation condition as the only arguable issue; the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no reasonably arguable issues, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Imposition of probation condition No. 14 (not remaining in the presence of a person known to illegally possess a firearm, deadly weapon, or ammunition, and not remaining in a building, vehicle, or presence of a person when the probationer knowingly has ready access to a firearm) over defense objection.“the probation officer informed the trial court that the language of the proposed probation condition was taken verbatim from People v. Forrest (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 1074. The trial court imposed the condition, over Wilson's objection.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The court did not articulate a standard of review; it conducted an independent Wende/Anders review and concluded the condition presented no reasonably arguable issue. The condition as worded contains express knowledge requirements ("you know," "knowingly"), which is the scienter language Forrest approved to cure vagueness and overbreadth concerns in a similar firearm-access condition, and a weapons-presence condition is reasonably related to future criminality for a domestic-violence stalking offense under the Lent framework. Nothing in the opinion suggests the condition was unreasonable or unconstitutionally vague, so the Wende affirmance appears correct, though the opinion gives no analysis of its own. |
Judgment entered on the stipulated plea: suspended two-year prison term, formal probation, 365 days local custody releasable to residential treatment, with credits of 97 actual and 96 good-time days.“Wilson was sentenced consistent with the plea agreement. He received 97 actual days credit, and 96 days good time credit.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The sentence tracked the negotiated disposition, the opinion recites no defect in the plea, sentence, or credit calculation, and a defendant who receives the benefit of a stipulated plea bargain generally cannot challenge its terms on appeal. The independent Wende review disclosed no arguable error, and nothing in the recited record contradicts that conclusion. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel files a brief raising no 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 may so advise the court and request to withdraw, but must file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
- relied: People v. Forrest (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 1074 — A probation condition barring a probationer from remaining in a building, vehicle, or the presence of a person with ready access to a firearm must include an express knowledge requirement to withstand vagueness and overbreadth challenges; the condition here copied that approved language.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion complies with Wende and Anders by describing the plea, sentence, and the one issue counsel flagged, confirming the defendant was given an opportunity to file a supplemental brief, and stating that independent review disclosed no arguable issues. It offers no substantive analysis of the challenged probation condition under People v. Lent or the vagueness/overbreadth framework, but because the condition tracks Forrest's knowledge-qualified language, the result is defensible and the omission is typical of Wende dispositions.
Opinion
Filed 8/26/16 P. v. Wilson 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, D069036
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN346525)
DANIEL WILSON,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Michael J. Popkins, Judge. Affirmed.
Russell S. Babcock, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. I.
INTRODUCTION
Daniel Wilson pled guilty to one count of stalking with a court order in effect, in violation of Penal Code1 section 646.9, subdivision (b), pursuant to a stipulated plea agreement. The trial court sentenced Wilson to formal probation, ordered him to serve 365 days in local custody, permitted him to be released immediately to participate in a residential treatment program, and ordered that upon Wilson's successful completion of a residential treatment program, the balance of Wilson's custody time would be deemed satisfied. Appointed appellate counsel filed a brief presenting no argument for reversal, but inviting this court to review the record for error in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We affirm.
II.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Wilson was charged with three related domestic violence charges, alleged to have occurred between April 14 and May 14, 2015, against Nancy A, including one count of stalking with a court order in effect (§ 646.9, subd. (b); count 1), one count of making a criminal threat (§ 422; count 2), and one count of corporal injury to a spouse and/or roommate (§ 273.5, subd. (a); count 3).
Wilson pled guilty to count 1, pursuant to a plea agreement, on September 15, 2015. The other charges were dismissed. The stipulated plea agreement called for 1 Further references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. 2 Wilson to be sentenced to two years in state prison, with execution of that sentence suspended. According to the terms of the plea agreement, Wilson would be placed on probation, be required to serve 365 days in local custody, but would be deemed "releasable" to a representative of the public defender's office or a representative of a residential treatment program at any time after his sentencing, and would be required to successfully complete a residential treatment program. Any remaining balance of the custody time would be deemed satisfied by successful completion of the treatment program.
Wilson was sentenced consistent with the plea agreement. He received 97 actual days credit, and 96 days good time credit. At sentencing, Wilson's attorney objected to a probation condition listed under paragraph No. 14, which provided:
"Do not remain in the presence of any person who you know illegally possesses a firearm, deadly weapon, or ammunition. Also, do not remain in a building, in a vehicle, or in the presence of any person when you knowingly have ready access to a firearm, regardless of whether it is lawfully possessed or was lawfully acquired."
In response to the court's inquiry after hearing defense counsel's objection to this probation condition, the probation officer informed the trial court that the language of the proposed probation condition was taken verbatim from People v. Forrest (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 1074. The trial court imposed the condition, over Wilson's objection.
3 III.
DISCUSSION
Wilson's appellate counsel has filed a brief, pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, in which counsel raises no issues on appeal and requests that we independently review the record. Counsel has identified the following issue that "might arguably support the appeal" (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, 744): " 'Did the court err[ ] in imposing probation condition 14(a) over the objection of appellant namely that he ["]not remain in the presence of any person who you know illegally possesses a firearm, deadly weapon, or ammunition. Also, do not remain in a building, in a vehicle, or in the presence of any person when you knowingly have ready access to a firearm, regardless of whether it is lawfully possessed or was [ ]lawfully acquired.["] ' "
On April 18, 2016, we sent a letter to Wilson informing him that his attorney had filed a brief pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and offering Wilson 30 days to submit by letter or brief any ground of appeal, contention or argument that he wished us to consider. We did not receive a response from him.2 A review of the record pursuant to 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.
2 We sent our letter to Wilson at his address of record in this court. The letter was returned as undeliverable. Wilson has not provided this court with an updated address. 4 IV.
DISPOSITION
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
AARON, J.
WE CONCUR:
McDONALD, Acting P. J.
PRAGER, J.* * Judge of the San Diego Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. 5
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Forrest No. D065056 · 2015-06-18
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12