People v. Sutton CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD262287
- Trial judge
- Polly H. Shamoon
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Joan K. Irion (author), Gilbert Nares
Analysis
The trial court accepted Sutton's guilty plea to felony child abuse and imposed a four-year prison sentence within the stipulated range of two to four years. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record found no reasonably arguable issues of error.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Imposition of a four-year prison sentence for felony child abuse“Did the court abuse its discretion by sentencing appellant to a four-year prison term instead of a two-year term?” | abuse of discretion | not reached | unsure The court did not explicitly analyze the sentencing issue under the abuse of discretion standard; instead, it concluded that the record disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue after an independent review. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to independently review the record for error when presenting no argument for reversal.
- 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 issues that might arguably support the appeal.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for reviewing a record when counsel presents no argument. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' opinion because it fails to explicitly address the specific sentencing issue identified by counsel, relying instead on a general statement that no reasonably arguable issues were found.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court accepted Sutton's guilty plea to one count of felony child abuse (Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. (a)) under a stipulated range of two to four years and imposed the upper term of four years. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief, Sutton filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issue, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Imposition of a four-year prison sentence (the top of the stipulated two-to-four-year range) rather than a two-year term following the guilty plea to felony child abuse.“"Did the court abuse its discretion by sentencing appellant to a four-year prison term instead of a two-year term?"” | abuse of discretion | correct | agree with court The sentence fell within the range Sutton stipulated to in her plea form, and the probation report described multiple instances of physical abuse and neglect of three children, which would support an upper-term choice. The opinion recites no facts suggesting the court relied on improper factors, and under Wende/Anders review the court found no arguable issue; nothing in the opinion indicates otherwise. |
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 error.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous may so advise the court but must identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion correctly applies the Wende/Anders procedure: counsel identified a possible issue, the appellant was invited to file a supplemental brief and did not, and the court independently reviewed the record and found no arguable issue. It does not explain why the upper-term choice was within the court's discretion or address whether a certificate of probable cause was needed, but given the within-range stipulated sentence and the limited notice of appeal, the result is defensible.
Opinion
Filed 9/7/16 P. v. Sutton 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, D069570
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD262287)
COLINESHA RENEE SUTTON ,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Polly H. Shamoon, Judge. Affirmed.
Forest M. Wilkerson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Colinesha Renee Sutton appeals from a judgment following her guilty plea to a single count of felony child abuse (Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. (a).)1 Appointed appellate 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 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).
Sutton has not responded to our invitation to file a supplemental brief. After having independently reviewed the entire record for error as required by Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) and Wende, we affirm.
I
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Beginning in 2012, Child Protective Services conducted an investigation into child abuse by Sutton against her three children, involving multiple instances of physical abuse and neglect.2 Sutton was charged on May 29, 2015, as follows: (1) two counts of felony child abuse (§ 273a, subd. (a); counts 1 & 2), with different children named as victims in each count; and (2) one count of corporal injury upon a child (§ 273(d), subd. (a);
count 3), with a third child named as the victim.
On October 7, 2015, Sutton pled guilty to count 1, and the People dismissed the remaining counts. The guilty plea form that Sutton signed included a stipulation to a sentence between two and four years. As the basis for the guilty plea, Sutton admitted that she willfully permitted her child to be placed in a situation that endangered his physical and mental health and could have resulted in great bodily injury. The trial court imposed a prison sentence of four years.
2 We base our brief factual description on the probation officer's report, which details the abuse and neglect against the three children. 2 Sutton filed a notice of appeal, specifying that the appeal was based on the sentence or other matters occurring after the guilty plea.
II
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings in the trial court. Counsel presented no argument for reversal but invited this court to review the record for error in accordance with Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.
Counsel has identified the following issues that "might arguably support the appeal" (Anders, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 744): "Did the court abuse its discretion by sentencing appellant to a four-year prison term instead of a two-year term?"
After we received counsel's brief, we gave Sutton an opportunity to file a supplemental brief, but Sutton did not respond.
A review of the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the issue suggested by counsel, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Sutton has been adequately represented by counsel on this appeal.
3 DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
IRION, J.
WE CONCUR:
NARES, 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. 4
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12