People v. Appling CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D077052 · 2020-08-21 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCE389847
Trial judge: Patricia K. Cookson
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Cynthia Aaron, Patricia Guerrero

Analysis

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

The trial court convicted Camille Appling of elder abuse and assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury, sentencing her to three years with probation. 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
Conviction for elder abuse (Pen. Code § 368, subd. (b)(1)) and assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury (Pen. Code § 245, subd. (a)(4)) “A jury convicted Camille Appling of one count of elder abuse (Pen. Code,1 § 368, subd. (b)(1); count 1) and assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4); count 2).”	unclear	not reached	unsure The appellate court did not explicitly rule on the sufficiency of the evidence for the convictions in the text, but stated that after reviewing the record, 'none of the possible issues rises to the level of arguable issues for reversal on appeal.'
Admission of expert witness testimony about strangulation “3. Whether the trial court erred when it allowed an expert witness to testify about strangulation;”	unclear	not reached	unsure The court listed this as a potential issue identified by counsel but concluded that 'none of the possible issues rises to the level of arguable issues for reversal on appeal.'
Admission of 911 recording “4. Whether the court erred and abused its discretion in allowing the 911 recording to be played to the jury;”	unclear	not reached	unsure The court listed this as a potential issue identified by counsel but concluded that 'none of the possible issues rises to the level of arguable issues for reversal on appeal.'
Exclusion of evidence of Appling’s membership in nonprofit organizations “5. Whether the trial court erred and abused its discretion in excluding evidence of Appling’s membership in nonprofit organizations.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The court listed this as a potential issue identified by counsel but concluded that 'none of the possible issues rises to the level of arguable issues for reversal on appeal.'

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to review the record for arguable issues when no issues are identified, and the court to independently review the record if counsel finds none.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires counsel to file a brief identifying potential issues and the court to review the record to ensure no arguable issues are overlooked.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it follows the Wende/Anders protocol for reviewing a case where counsel identifies no arguable issues. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' opinion because it lists five specific potential issues raised by counsel but provides no substantive legal analysis or reasoning for why each specific issue fails to rise to the level of an arguable error, relying solely on the conclusion that none are arguable.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

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

A San Diego jury convicted Camille Appling of elder abuse (Pen. Code § 368, subd. (b)(1)) and assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)) for choking her 78-year-old grandmother, and the trial court imposed a three-year term with execution suspended and granted probation, staying count 2 under section 654. On appeal, counsel filed a Wende brief, Appling filed a supplemental pro. per. brief attacking the victim's credibility and relying on matters outside the record, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Judgment of conviction and grant of probation reviewed under Wende/Anders independent record review for arguable issues “We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have carefully considered the multiple possible issues raised by Appling’s brief. In light of the record, none of the possible issues rises to the level of arguable issues for reversal on appeal”	unclear	correct	agree with court The court followed the procedure required by Wende and Anders: counsel identified possible issues, the defendant was given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief, and the court states it reviewed the entire record. The opinion recites no specific record facts beyond a brief factual summary, so an outside reader cannot independently verify the conclusion, but nothing in the opinion suggests a legal misstep.
Sufficiency of the evidence of force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)) and of elder abuse (§ 368, subd. (b)(1)) “Appling threw the victim onto a bed and choked her for several seconds using both hands.”	substantial evidence	correct	agree with court Choking a 78-year-old victim with both hands for several seconds is evidence from which a rational jury could find force likely to produce great bodily injury and willful infliction of unjustifiable physical pain on an elder; the court's implicit conclusion that this is not an arguable issue is consistent with the facts recited. The opinion does not expressly state the standard, but sufficiency claims are reviewed for substantial evidence.
Admission of expert testimony on strangulation and the 911 recording; exclusion of evidence of Appling's membership in nonprofit organizations “3. Whether the trial court erred when it allowed an expert witness to testify about strangulation;”	abuse of discretion	correct	unsure These evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion; the court concluded none presented an arguable issue but gave no analysis of the specific rulings or the record supporting them. The result is plausible (strangulation expert testimony and 911 calls are routinely admitted, and character evidence of organizational membership is of marginal relevance), but the opinion provides too little detail to confirm independently.
Pro. per. supplemental brief challenging victim credibility and presenting materials outside the appellate record “We have carefully reviewed her submission but find it does not identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.”	unclear	correct	agree with court An appellate court does not reweigh witness credibility and cannot consider letters, photographs, and other materials outside the record on direct appeal; the court's rejection of these contentions as non-arguable is correct under settled principles. The opinion does not cite authority for these principles, which is a minor gap.

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 frivolous must file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, and the defendant must be allowed to raise points.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court followed the Wende/Anders procedure, identified counsel's possible issues, considered the defendant's supplemental brief, and affirmed after independent review, which is the correct disposition when no arguable issue exists. The opinion contains almost no analysis of the identified issues or the record, so it is defensible but cannot be fully checked from its text.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 8/21/20 P. v. Appling 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, D077052

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCE389847)

CAMILLE APPLING,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Patricia K. Cookson, Judge. Affirmed. Camille Appling, in pro. per.; and Arielle Bases, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. A jury convicted Camille Appling of one count of elder abuse (Pen.

Code,1 § 368, subd. (b)(1); count 1) and assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4); count 2). The court sentenced Appling to a 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. three-year term for count 1 but suspended the execution of the sentence and granted Appling probation on various terms and conditions.2 Appling filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), indicating counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Appling the opportunity to file her own brief on appeal. Appling has responded with a lengthy supplemental brief raising a number of matters outside the record on appeal as well as challenges to the credibility of the victim in the case. STATEMENT OF FACTS In March 2019, Appling and her son were living with her grandmother (the victim). The victim was 78 years old at the time of the event in this case. Appling and the victim got into an argument which led to a physical encounter. Appling threw the victim onto a bed and choked her for several seconds using both hands. DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to review the record as mandated by Wende. 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 multiple possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: 1. Whether there was enough evidence of force likely to cause great bodily injury; 2. Whether there was sufficient evidence to prove elder abuse (§ 368, subd. (b)(1));

2 The sentence on count 2 was stayed under section 654. 2 3. Whether the trial court erred when it allowed an expert witness to testify about strangulation; 4. Whether the court erred and abused its discretion in allowing the 911 recording to be played to the jury; and 5. Whether the trial court erred and abused its discretion in excluding evidence of Appling’s membership in nonprofit organizations. In her supplemental brief, Appling contends the victim lied and that in reality, Appling was the victim of an assault. She has included letters of support, the transcript of the 911 call, and pictures of herself and her son. We have carefully reviewed her submission but find it does not identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have carefully considered the multiple possible issues raised by Appling’s brief. In light of the record, none of the possible issues rises to the level of arguable issues for reversal on appeal, nor have we discovered any arguable issues in the remainder of the record. Competent counsel has represented Appling on this appeal.

3 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

AARON, J.

GUERRERO, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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