People v. Thornton CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D077231 · 2020-08-28 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCE396110
Trial judge: Daniel Lamborn
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), O'Rourke, Cynthia Aaron

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T05:23Z · confidence high

The trial court accepted a guilty plea and imposed a stipulated 32-month sentence, but denied the defendant's request for a certificate of probable cause. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, finding no arguable issues for reversal on direct appeal and directing the defendant to pursue his claims via habeas corpus.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of certificate of probable cause (CPC) “Thornton’s request for a certificate of probable cause was denied by the trial court. ... We decline to do so.”	unclear	correct	agree with court agree with court
Affirmance of judgment / No arguable issues on direct appeal “We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.”	de novo	correct	agree with court agree with court

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to review the record for arguable issues when the defendant cannot afford counsel and counsel finds no issues.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to file a brief identifying potentially meritorious issues while seeking to withdraw.
relied: People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68 — A defendant cannot attack the validity of a guilty plea on direct appeal without a certificate of probable cause.
relied: People v. Mendoza Tello (1997) 15 Cal.4th 264 — Claims that require development of a record not present on direct appeal should be pursued via habeas corpus.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly applies the Wende/Anders framework to review the record and properly limits the scope of direct appeal based on the denial of the certificate of probable cause. It accurately directs the defendant to habeas corpus for claims requiring a developed record.

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 Thornton's negotiated guilty plea to possession of methamphetamine with an admitted strike prior, imposed the stipulated 32-month sentence with a $750 restitution fine and standard fees, and denied his request for a certificate of probable cause. On appeal, counsel filed a Wende brief, the Court of Appeal declined to order issuance of a certificate, found Thornton's supplemental claims non-cognizable or unsupported by the record, and affirmed after independent review.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of certificate of probable cause; appellate request that the trial court be ordered to issue one “He now requests this court to order the trial court to issue a certificate of probable cause. We decline to do so. Thus, the cognizable issues on this appeal can only deal with matters occurring after the plea.”	unclear	correct	agree with court Under Penal Code section 1237.5 and Panizzon, a defendant may not challenge the validity of a plea or a stipulated sentence without a certificate of probable cause; the Court of Appeal properly treated the absence of a certificate as limiting review to post-plea matters and gave no basis to compel issuance.
Imposition of court operations assessment, conviction assessment, and Government Code section 29550 fee via the statement 'all other standard fines and fees are ordered' “was insufficient to make them part of the judgment.”	unclear	correct	unsure Counsel flagged this as a possible issue under Anders, but the opinion does not separately analyze it; it simply concludes after Wende review that no arguable issue exists. The result is plausibly right because statutory assessments are mandatory and the abstract presumably specifies them, but the opinion gives no reasoning on the point.
Constitutional challenge to the stipulated 32-month sentence raised in supplemental brief “There is nothing in the record to cause Thornton’s contention to rise to the level of an arguable issue for reversal on appeal.”	unclear	correct	agree with court A challenge to a sentence stipulated in a plea bargain is an attack on the plea itself and requires a certificate of probable cause under Panizzon; the record also contained nothing supporting the claim, so the court correctly found no arguable issue and properly directed remaining claims to habeas corpus per Mendoza Tello.
Judgment of conviction and sentence following guilty plea (Wende/Anders independent review) “We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The court performed the independent record review required by Wende and Anders, considered the defendant's supplemental brief, and found no arguable issues; nothing in the opinion suggests reversible error in the post-plea proceedings.

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 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.
relied: People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68 — A challenge to a sentence negotiated as part of a plea bargain is an attack on the validity of the plea and requires a certificate of probable cause.
relied: People v. Mendoza Tello (1997) 15 Cal.4th 264 — Claims that depend on facts outside the appellate record, such as ineffective assistance, must be raised by habeas corpus petition rather than direct appeal.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion correctly applies Panizzon and section 1237.5 to limit review to post-plea matters, addresses the supplemental brief as required, and conducts the Wende review. It does not, however, explain why the fines-and-fees issue counsel identified under Anders is not arguable, leaving that point unanalyzed.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 8/28/20 P. v. Thornton 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, D077231

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCE396110)

WILLIAM CECIL THORNTON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Daniel Lamborn, Judge. Affirmed. William Cecil Thornton, in pro. per.; and John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. William Cecil Thornton entered into a plea agreement, under the terms of which he pleaded guilty to one count of possession of methamphetamine (Health and Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) and admitted a strike prior (Pen. Code, § 667, subds. (b)-(i)). The prosecution agreed not to prosecute a pending Penal Code section 290 case and agreed to dismiss the remaining charge and allegations. The parties stipulated to a 32 month sentence. The court sentenced Thornton to 32 months in custody and imposed a $750 restitution fine and several fees and assessments. Thornton filed a timely notice of appeal, however his request for a certificate of probable cause was denied. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), indicating he 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 Thornton the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal. We will further address Thornton’s supplemental brief later in this opinion. STATEMENT OF FACTS This appeal is from a guilty plea with no evidentiary hearing. The record shows that Thornton was stopped by a law enforcement officer. The subsequent search produced methamphetamine and a pipe. DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks this court to review the record for error 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 the following possible issue that he considered in evaluating the potential merits of the appeal: Whether the court operations assessment ($40), the conviction assessment ($30), and the fines imposed pursuant to Government Code section 29550 ($154), should be stricken because the trial court’s statement “all other standard fines and fees are ordered,” was insufficient to make them part of the judgment. As we have discussed, the case arises from a stipulated sentence in a plea agreement. Thornton’s request for a certificate of probable cause was 2 denied by the trial court. Thornton recognizes he cannot attack his guilty plea without a certificate (People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68). He now requests this court to order the trial court to issue a certificate of probable cause. We decline to do so. Thus, the cognizable issues on this appeal can only deal with matters occurring after the plea. The record on appeal is very brief and does not include any objections in the trial court nor any submissions raising any of the issues Thornton now seeks to raise for the first time. The only claim in the supplemental brief that relates in any fashion to the record, is the claim his stipulated 32-month sentence is constitutionally infirm. There is nothing in the record to cause Thornton’s contention to rise to the level of an arguable issue for reversal on appeal. In short, Thornton’s shotgun attack on his conviction in this case cannot be addressed on direct appeal. We lack a record to support the claims which could not be reached in any event due to the lack of a certificate of probable cause. Further pursuit of his myriad claims must be accomplished by a petition for habeas corpus where a record can be developed. (People v. Mendoza Tello (1997) 15 Cal.4th 264.) We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Thornton on this appeal.

3 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

O'ROURKE, J.

AARON, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Mendoza Tello S055184 · 1997-04-17
People v. Panizzon S046141 · 1996-04-18
People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12