People v. Berry CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D077141 · 2020-08-18 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCN396097
Trial judge: Robert J. Kearney
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Patricia D. Benke, Patricia Guerrero

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T05:24Z · confidence low

The trial court revoked Berry's probation and sentenced him to two years in prison after finding he violated a condition by testing positive for methamphetamine. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, finding no arguable issues for reversal after an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Probation revocation based on positive methamphetamine test “The testimony at the evidentiary hearing demonstrated that Berry had three urine tests which revealed the presence of methamphetamine.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The appellate court did not explicitly analyze the sufficiency of the evidence or the standard of review for the revocation finding; it simply stated it found no arguable issues for reversal after reviewing the record.
Two-year prison sentence “Whether the court abused its discretion by sentencing Berry to a two-year term.”	abuse of discretion	not reached	unsure The court identified the issue as one of abuse of discretion but did not provide specific reasoning for why the sentence was not an abuse, relying instead on the general Wende review conclusion.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to identify 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 file a brief identifying potential issues when they believe an appeal is frivolous, requiring court review.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound in following the Wende/Anders protocol for indigent appeals where counsel finds no merit. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' opinion because it fails to provide any specific legal analysis or reasoning for why the trial court's findings and sentence were correct, relying solely on the negative conclusion of the independent review.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:30Z · confidence low

The trial court revoked Berry's probation after an evidentiary hearing on three positive methamphetamine urine tests and sentenced him to two years in prison. On appeal, counsel filed a Wende brief, the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Finding that Berry violated the terms of probation (formal revocation of probation) “The testimony at the evidentiary hearing demonstrated that Berry had three urine tests which revealed the presence of methamphetamine.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The opinion does not state a standard, but counsel framed the issue as sufficiency of the evidence; three positive methamphetamine tests, with the trial court free to disbelieve Berry's laced-marijuana explanation, readily support a violation finding under the preponderance standard governing probation revocation. The opinion does not analyze the issue beyond saying no arguable issue exists, so the conclusion is defensible but unexplained.
Sentencing Berry to a two-year prison term upon revocation “Whether the court abused its discretion by sentencing Berry to a two-year term.”	abuse of discretion	correct	unsure Counsel identified abuse of discretion as the potential issue; the opinion found nothing arguable. The record described in the opinion is too sparse to verify (e.g., whether probation was originally granted with a suspended sentence or imposition suspended, and what term was selected), so the result cannot be independently confirmed from the opinion alone.

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.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal without merit must file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the standard Wende/Anders procedure, identifies the issues counsel flagged, and states that an independent record review disclosed no arguable issue, which is all Wende requires. It offers no substantive analysis of the sufficiency or sentencing questions, so the result is defensible but unexplained.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 8/18/20 P. v. Berry 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, D077141

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN396097)

EDDIE LEE BERRY,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Robert J. Kearney, Judge. Affirmed. Lynelle K. Hee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Eddie Lee Berry pleaded guilty to one count of failing to register as a sex offender (Pen. Code, § 290.018, subd. (b)). The remaining allegations were dismissed. Berry was placed on formal probation on various terms and conditions. Several months later, Berry’s probation was summarily revoked. Following an evidentiary hearing, the court formally revoked probation and sentenced Berry to a two-year term of imprisonment. The court imposed, but suspended various fines, fees and assessments. Berry filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating she has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Berry the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. STATEMENT OF FACTS The testimony at the evidentiary hearing demonstrated that Berry had three urine tests which revealed the presence of methamphetamine. Berry testified he did not intentionally ingest methamphetamine. He learned from his supplier that his marijuana had been laced with methamphetamine without his knowledge. DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks this court to review the record for error. To assist the court in its review of the record, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified the following issues she considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: 1. Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding that Berry violated the terms of probation; and 2. Whether the court abused its discretion by sentencing Berry to a two-year term. We have reviewed the entire record as mandated by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Berry on this appeal.

2 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

BENKE, Acting P. J.

GUERRERO, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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