People v. Macias CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of Imperial County · No. JCF000979
- Trial judge
- Poli Flores, Jr.
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- delinquency
- Panel
- Patricia D. Benke (author), Judith L. Haller, O'Rourke
Analysis
The trial court accepted a no-contest plea to forcible oral copulation and a stipulated sentence, which included a waiver of the right to appeal the prior jury conviction on count 1. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after conducting an independent review of the record under Wende/Anders procedures and finding no arguable issues.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Affirmance of the judgment following a Wende/Anders review“we have reviewed the record and conclude there are no arguable issues which would result in modification or reversal.” | unclear | not reached | unsure The court applied the standard Wende/Anders independent review procedure, finding no arguable issues in the record. The opinion does not detail specific trial court rulings being reviewed for error, but rather confirms the validity of the appeal waiver and the overall judgment. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Establishes the procedure for appointed appellate counsel to file a brief when no arguable issues exist, requiring the court to conduct an independent review of the record.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to file a brief identifying any arguable issues and to notify the client of the right to file a supplemental brief.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it follows the established Wende/Anders protocol for handling appeals where counsel finds no arguable issues. It correctly notes that the defendant was advised of his rights and declined to file a supplemental brief.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionAfter a jury convicted Marcos Macias of forcible rape of a child over 14 (Pen. Code, § 261, subd. (a)(2)) and hung on the remaining counts, he pled no contest to forcible oral copulation under an agreement for a stipulated 13-year term, dismissal of the other counts, and a waiver of his right to appeal the count 1 conviction. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief, the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed the judgment.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Judgment of conviction and 13-year stipulated sentence entered on the jury verdict (count 1) and the negotiated no contest plea (count 5), including the validity of defendant's waiver of his right to appeal the count 1 conviction“Pursuant to counsel’s request and applicable law, we have reviewed the record and conclude there are no arguable issues which would result in modification or reversal.” | de novo | correct | agree with court The court followed the Wende/Anders procedure: counsel filed a no-issue brief identifying the appeal-waiver question as a possible issue, defendant was notified of his right to file a supplemental brief and did not, and the court states it independently reviewed the record and found nothing arguable. The opinion recites the facts and procedural history as People v. Kelly requires. The opinion does not describe the plea colloquy or analyze the appeal waiver, so the correctness of the conclusion cannot be verified from the opinion, but nothing in it suggests error; the stipulated sentence and plea terms as described are internally consistent. |
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 arguable issue exists before affirming.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal frivolous may so advise the court and request to withdraw, accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, after which the court conducts its own examination of the record.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion complies with the Wende/Anders procedure and with People v. Kelly's requirement that the court describe the facts, procedural history, and issues counsel flagged, and it reaches the standard disposition of affirmance after independent review. It offers no analysis of the one issue counsel identified—whether the appeal waiver was knowing and intelligent—and does not cite the controlling authority on plea-based appeal waivers, so the result is defensible but the reasoning is conclusory.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
record incompleteOpinion
Filed 8/14/20 P. v. Macias 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, D076930
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. JCF000979)
MARCOS MACIAS,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Imperial County, Poli Flores, Jr., Judge. Affirmed.
Janice R. Mazur, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. BACKGROUND On June 25, 2018, law enforcement responded to a call regarding a sex offense in Salton City. They met with the victim, a minor, who was emotional and crying. She told the deputies that she had been molested by her father, defendant Marcos Macias, for the past year, starting when she was 14 years old and in the eighth grade. She stated the sexual encounters included sexual intercourse, and they happened once or twice a week, the most recent occurring the night before. At first defendant denied any wrongdoing but when told the victim’s exam showed his DNA inside her, he stated she had initiated the contact. At that time the police did not have the DNA information. On September 27, 2019, a jury found defendant guilty of one count of forcible rape on a child victim over 14 years old in violation of Penal Code1 section 261, subdivision (a)(2) (count 1). It was not able to reach a verdict on counts 2–8 and a mistrial was declared as to those counts. At a pretrial conference on October 16, 2019, an agreement was reached whereby defendant pled no contest to forcible oral copulation, with a stipulated sentence of the low term of seven years on the previously found guilty verdict on count 1, and the low term of six years on count 5 to be served consecutively, for a total prison term of 13 years. Defendant was required to register as a sex offender pursuant to section 290. Under the plea, all remaining counts were dismissed. Defendant waived his right to appeal the conviction of count 1. Defendant also agreed to waive any denial of his 1538.5 motion, issues related to strike priors, and any stipulated sentence. On the same day, defendant reviewed the plea agreement as to count 5, and accepted his plea to that count. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. ANALYSIS After consulting with Appellate Defenders Inc., and thoroughly reviewing the record, appellate counsel has filed a brief in accord with the procedures outlined in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders). She requests we conduct 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Court. 2 our own independent review of the record to determine if the record reveals any issues that would, if resolved favorably to defendant, result in modification or reversal of the judgement. To assist this court, counsel directs our attention to those areas of the record impacting whether defendant, as part of his plea agreement, knowingly and intelligently waived his right to appeal his conviction on count 1. Pursuant to counsel’s request and applicable law, we have reviewed the record and conclude there are no arguable issues which would result in modification or reversal. Appellate counsel has filed a declaration stating she has advised defendant that a brief was being filed pursuant to Wende and Anders. She has also advised defendant that he has a right to file a supplemental brief in his own behalf. This court has likewise informed defendant he is entitled to file a brief in his own behalf. He has chosen not to file a supplemental brief. Defendant has been represented by competent counsel on appeal. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.
BENKE, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
HALLER, J.
O’ROURKE, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12