People v. Solis CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgement
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD283185, SCS309290, SCS306656, SCE392324
- Trial judge
- Carlos O. Armour
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Judith D. McConnell, Patricia Guerrero
Analysis
The trial court sentenced the defendant to a total term of six years and eight months pursuant to stipulated plea agreements in four separate cases. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, finding no arguable issues for reversal.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Affirmance of the judgment following a Wende review“We have reviewed the entire record as mandated by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.” | de novo | not reached | agree with court The appellate court applied the standard Wende/Anders review, which requires the court to independently examine the record for any arguable issues of error. The court found no such issues, leading to the affirmance. This is the standard procedure for appeals where appointed counsel files a Wende brief. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to file a brief identifying arguable issues or, if none exist, to request the court to independently review the record for error.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to withdraw from an appeal when no arguable issues exist, requiring a brief to the court and notice to the defendant.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for handling appeals where counsel identifies no arguable issues. The court explicitly states it reviewed the entire record and found no errors, which is the required standard of review in this context.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court accepted Solis's guilty pleas in four consolidated cases and imposed the stipulated aggregate term of six years eight months with fines, fees and assessments; Solis appealed without certificates of probable cause. Appointed counsel filed a Wende brief identifying two possible issues (conformity of the sentence to the plea agreements and calculation of custody credits), the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Imposition of the stipulated six-year-eight-month aggregate sentence in accordance with the plea agreements“Whether Solis was sentenced in accord with the plea agreements;” | unclear | correct | agree with court The opinion states the parties stipulated to a total term of six years eight months and that the court imposed exactly that term; nothing in the recited record suggests a deviation from the bargain, and absent a certificate of probable cause challenges to the plea itself would not be cognizable in any event. |
Calculation of presentence custody credits“Whether the custody credits were calculated correctly.” | unclear | correct | unsure The opinion gives no figures for custody credits, so the correctness of the calculation cannot be independently verified from the opinion; the court's statement that it reviewed the entire record and found no arguable issue is all that is available. |
Overall judgment following Wende/Anders independent review of the record“We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The court followed the required Wende procedure: counsel filed a no-issues brief with Anders-identified potential issues, the defendant was invited to file a supplemental brief and did not, and the court independently reviewed the record. The procedure described complies with Wende and Anders. |
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 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, while filing a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion correctly follows the Wende/Anders procedure, recites the pleas, stipulated sentence, and the two potential issues counsel flagged, and affirms after independent review, which is a defensible result. It is sparse, however: it does not state the custody credit figures or the fines imposed, does not note that the absence of certificates of probable cause limits the cognizable issues, and it misdescribes the SCD283185 offense as battery with serious bodily injury while citing section 245, subdivision (a)(4), which is the assault statute.
Opinion
Filed 8/20/20 P. v. Solis 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, D076936
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. Nos. SCD283185, SCS309290, SCS306656, SCOTT SHERIDAN SOLIS, SCE392324)
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgement of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Carlos O. Armour, Judge. Affirmed. Arthur Martin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. This appeal involves four different cases which were ultimately resolved by plea agreements with a total stipulated sentence. STATEMENT OF FACTS The guilty pleas in each case are as follows: 1. Case No. SCS306656 Solis pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful possession of ammunition (Pen. Code,1 § 30305, subd. (a)(1)). 2. Case No. SCE392324 Solis pleaded guilty to assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)). 3. Case No. SCS309290 Solis pleaded guilty to one count of discharging a firearm in a grossly negligent manner (§ 246.3, subd. (a)). 4. Case No. SCD283185 Solis pleaded guilty to battery with serious bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)). Solis also admitted an enhancement for personally inflicting great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). The parties stipulated to a total term for all cases of six years eight months. The court sentenced Solis to a total term of six years eight months as agreed in the plea bargain and ordered various fines, fees and assessments. Solis filed timely notices of appeal but did not obtain certificates of probable cause. (§ 1237.5.) Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), indicating counsel has been unable 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 Solis the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the 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 two possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: 1. Whether Solis was sentenced in accord with the plea agreements; and 2. Whether the custody credits were calculated correctly. 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 Solis on this appeal. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
GUERRERO, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12