People v. Rodarte CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D076659 · 2020-08-25 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD280163
Trial judge: Kathleen M. Lewis
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Judith L. Haller, Patricia Guerrero

Analysis

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

The trial court accepted Rodarte's guilty plea to one count of sexual intercourse with a minor and a strike prior, sentencing him to eight years in prison as stipulated. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende and 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 required by Wende and Anders, and we have considered all of the possible issues identified by counsel. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.”	de novo	not reached	agree with court The court applied the standard Wende/Anders review, examining the record for any arguable issues. The court found none, leading to an affirmance. This is the standard procedure for appointed counsel who cannot find arguable issues.

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 review the record for error.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to file a brief identifying arguable issues or, if none exist, to request the court to review the record for error.
relied: People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 — Establishes the standard for evaluating a defendant's request for new counsel.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is a standard Wende brief disposition. The court correctly identifies the procedural posture (no certificate of probable cause, Wende brief filed) and states that it reviewed the record for error. The reasoning is sufficient for this type of procedural disposition.

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

The trial court accepted Rodarte's guilty plea to unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor under 16 (Pen. Code, § 261.5, subd. (d)) with an admitted juvenile strike prior and imposed the stipulated eight-year prison term, dismissing the remaining charges. On appeal, counsel filed a Wende brief, Rodarte filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed the judgment.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Acceptance of the guilty plea and strike admission and imposition of the stipulated eight-year sentence “We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders, and we have considered all of the possible issues identified by counsel. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.”	unclear	correct	agree with court A Wende review is an independent examination of the record for arguable issues, and the opinion reports none. The result is consistent with the record described: the plea form recites a factual basis, the eight-year term equals the upper term of four years under section 261.5, subdivision (d) doubled for the strike, and because Rodarte obtained no certificate of probable cause under section 1237.5, challenges to the validity of the plea or the stipulated sentence would not be cognizable in any event. Nothing in the opinion suggests legal error, though the opinion's brevity limits what can be verified.
Denial of Rodarte's preplea Marsden motion “5. Can Rodarte challenge the outcome of his preplea Marsden2 motion.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The court listed the Marsden ruling among the issues counsel flagged and found no arguable issue after reviewing the record. The opinion does not discuss the Marsden hearing itself, but a preplea Marsden ruling following a guilty plea without a certificate of probable cause is generally not reviewable, so the disposition is defensible on this record.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed counsel finds no arguable issues, the appellate court 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 should identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal to assist the court's review.
relied: People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 — A defendant seeking substitution of appointed counsel must be permitted to state the reasons for the request and the court must inquire into them.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion follows the standard Wende/Anders procedure, lists the issues counsel flagged, states that the court independently reviewed the entire record, and affirms; nothing in it suggests the law was misapplied. It does not explain why the identified issues lack merit (for example, the absence of a certificate of probable cause under section 1237.5), but that level of explanation is not required in a Wende disposition.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

Filed 8/25/20 P. v. Rodarte 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, D076659

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD280163)

OSVALDO RODARTE,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Kathleen M. Lewis, Judge. Affirmed. Karissa Adame, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Osvaldo Rodarte entered into a plea agreement with a stipulated sentence. Under the terms of the agreement Rodarte pleaded guilty to one count of sexual intercourse with a minor under the age of 16 (Pen. Code,1 § 261.5, subd. (d)). Rodarte also admitted a strike prior (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)).

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. The parties stipulated to a sentence of eight years in prison. The remaining charges and allegations were dismissed. Rodarte was sentenced to an eight-year term as stipulated in the plea agreement. Rodarte filed a timely notice of appeal but did not obtain a certificate 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 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 Rodarte the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. STATEMENT OF FACTS In the change of plea form Rodarte stated: “I unlawfully engaged in sexual intercourse act with a minor under 16 years or younger and while I was 21 years old or older. I admit I have a juvenile strike prior.” DISCUSSION As we have noted, 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 possible issues that counsel considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: 1. Did Rodarte voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently enter into the plea agreement; 2. Was the stipulated sentence lawful; 3. Can Rodarte challenge the use of the strike prior on appeal; 4. Was there a factual basis for the plea; and 2 5. Can Rodarte challenge the outcome of his preplea Marsden2 motion. We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders, and we have considered all of the possible issues identified by counsel. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Rodarte on this appeal. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

HALLER, J.

GUERRERO, J.

2 People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118. 3

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12
People v. Marsden Crim. 14119 · 1970-02-26