People v. Pierce CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCE337996
- Trial judge
- Ronald F. Frazier
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Judith L. Haller (author), O'Rourke, Gilbert Nares
Analysis
The trial court revoked Amber Pierce's probation for repeated violations and imposed a two-year state prison sentence. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review under Anders and Wende found no reasonably arguable appellate issues.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Revocation of probation and imposition of a two-year state prison sentence“The court then considered the appropriate disposition. The court stated it had reviewed supporting letters, the probation report identifying the probation violations and recommending a three-year upper term, and Pierce's prior history of unsuccessful probation. Based on its consideration of these materials, the court revoked probation and sentenced Pierce to the midterm of two years.” | unclear | not reached | unsure The opinion is a Wende/Anders brief where the court states it discerns no reasonably arguable issues. It does not explicitly apply a standard of review (such as abuse of discretion) to the trial court's decision, nor does it provide a detailed analysis of the trial court's ruling, merely affirming the judgment. |
Authorities
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed appellate counsel to file a brief identifying issues that might arguably support an appeal when no such issues exist.
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires the court of appeal to conduct an independent review of the record to ensure no reasonably arguable issues are overlooked when counsel files a Wende brief.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it follows the required Wende/Anders protocol for cases where counsel identifies no viable issues. However, it is extremely brief and provides no substantive legal analysis or application of standards of review to the specific facts of the probation revocation, relying entirely on the negative finding of no arguable issues.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court revoked Amber Pierce's probation after her second admitted violation and sentenced her to the two-year midterm for arson of property, having considered supporting letters, the probation report, and her history of unsuccessful probation. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief, Pierce filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal conducted an independent review, found no reasonably arguable issues, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Revocation of probation and imposition of a two-year midterm prison sentence rather than reinstatement of probation“Based on its consideration of these materials, the court revoked probation and sentenced Pierce to the midterm of two years.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The opinion does not state a standard of review because it is a Wende review, but the decision whether to reinstate probation or impose sentence after an admitted violation is reviewed for abuse of discretion. The record described shows a second admitted violation after a prior reinstatement and an express warning, consideration of letters and the probation report, and selection of the midterm rather than the recommended upper term; nothing suggests an abuse of discretion, so the court's conclusion that the issue is not reasonably arguable is supported. |
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 to determine whether any reasonably arguable issue exists.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous may so advise the court and file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, after which the court conducts its own examination.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the required Wende/Anders procedure, notes the one issue counsel flagged, and recites a record showing a second admitted violation after a prior reinstatement and warning, supporting the conclusion that no arguable sentencing issue exists. It does not expressly state the abuse-of-discretion standard or discuss the denied coram nobis petitions, but those omissions are typical of Wende dispositions and do not affect the result.
Opinion
Filed 9/7/16 P. v. Pierce 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, D069666
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCE337996)
AMBER M. PIERCE, Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Ronald F.
Frazier, Judge. Affirmed.
Joshua L. Siegel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
After Amber Pierce pled guilty to arson, the court suspended Pierce's sentence and placed her on probation. Pierce then twice violated probation conditions. At a hearing, the court revoked Pierce's probation and imposed a two-year sentence. Appointed appellate counsel filed a brief under Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) and People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We sent Pierce notice that her attorney had filed a Wende brief and provided Pierce with the opportunity to file a supplemental brief. We did not receive a response from Pierce.
After an independent review, we discern no reasonably arguable appellate issues and affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
In July 2014, Pierce pled guilty to arson of property. (Pen. Code, § 451, subd.
(d).) In September 2014, the court suspended sentence, and placed Pierce on three years' formal probation, subject to serving 270 days in county jail, with credit for 256 days.
Six months later, in March 2015, Pierce admitted she violated several probation conditions, including that she tested positive for methamphetamine and failed to enroll in treatment programs. After a hearing, the court reinstated her probation on the same terms. At a hearing held in May 2015, the court emphasized the importance of Pierce complying with the probation conditions.
At a December 2015 hearing, Pierce again admitted violating probation conditions and waived a hearing on the probation violations. The court then considered the appropriate disposition. The court stated it had reviewed supporting letters, the probation report identifying the probation violations and recommending a three-year upper term, and Pierce's prior history of unsuccessful probation. Based on its consideration of these 2 materials, the court revoked probation and sentenced Pierce to the midterm of two years.
The court ruled that fines and fees would be satisfied by custody.
Pierce was represented by counsel at each of these hearings.
Pierce also filed (in pro. per.) petitions for writ of coram nobis, asserting her conviction was void. The court denied the petitions.
Pierce's notice of appeal states she is appealing from the December 2015 sentencing order.
DISCUSSION
Counsel has identified the following issue that "might arguably support the appeal" (Anders, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 744): "Whether the trial court erred by sentencing appellant to state prison rather than reinstating the probation."
3 A review of the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the issue referred to by appellate counsel, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Competent counsel has represented Pierce on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HALLER, J.
WE CONCUR:
NARES, Acting P. J.
O'ROURKE, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12