People v. Almaraz CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D077238 · 2020-09-10 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCE393591
Trial judge: Robert O. Amador
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Judith L. Haller, Judith D. McConnell

Analysis

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

The trial court accepted a guilty plea to transportation of cocaine for sale and imposed a stipulated eight-year sentence along with a $2,400 restitution fine and various fees without a hearing on ability to pay. 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
Imposition of restitution fine, fees, and assessments without a hearing on ability to pay “Did the court err by imposing fines, fees and assessments without holding a hearing on the defendant’s ability to pay; and”	unclear	not reached	unsure The appellate court identified this as a potential issue for consideration but concluded after reviewing the record that it did not constitute an arguable issue for reversal. The opinion does not provide specific legal reasoning or cite authority to explain why this issue was rejected, relying instead on the general Wende review mandate.
Constitutional validity of the plea “Was Almaraz’s plea constitutionally valid;”	unclear	not reached	unsure The court listed this as a potential issue but found no arguable error on appeal. The opinion does not detail the specific constitutional standards applied or the factual basis for rejecting this claim, leaving the reasoning implicit in the overall Wende review.
Ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to fines and fees “Was counsel ineffective for failing to object to the fines, fees and assessments.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The court considered this potential issue but did not identify it as an arguable issue for reversal. The opinion does not provide specific analysis regarding the Strickland standard or the merits of the ineffectiveness claim, merely stating that no arguable issues were discovered.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Mandates independent review of the record by the appellate court when appointed counsel files a brief stating no arguable issues exist.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to file a brief identifying any arguable issues and to request leave to withdraw, allowing the court to review the record for error.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound in that it correctly identifies the Wende/Anders framework and states that an independent review was conducted. However, it is substantively thin because it lists three specific potential issues raised by counsel but provides no legal analysis or citation to authority explaining why those specific issues were not 'arguable' for reversal.

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 San Diego Superior Court accepted Almaraz's guilty plea to transporting cocaine for sale with an admitted weight enhancement, imposed the stipulated eight-year local prison term, and ordered a $2,400 restitution fine plus fees and assessments without defense objection. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief identifying three possible issues, Almaraz filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Acceptance of the guilty plea and imposition of the stipulated eight-year sentence “Almaraz filed a timely notice of appeal but did not obtain a certificate of probable cause (Pen. Code, § 1237.5).”	unclear	correct	agree with court The court conducted independent Wende/Anders review rather than applying a conventional standard. Because Almaraz did not obtain a certificate of probable cause, any challenge to the constitutional validity of the plea is not cognizable on appeal, and the sentence imposed matched the stipulated term, so no arguable issue exists. The opinion does not spell out this reasoning but its conclusion follows from the facts it recites.
Imposition of $2,400 restitution fine and fees/assessments without an ability-to-pay hearing, and counsel's failure to object “The court ordered a $2,400 restitution fine and various fees and assessments. The defense did not object.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The restitution fine exceeded the statutory minimum, so the trial court was already permitted to consider ability to pay under Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (d), and the failure to object forfeited the issue; on a silent record a related ineffective-assistance claim cannot be resolved on direct appeal because counsel may have had tactical reasons. The appellate court's conclusion that no arguable issue exists is defensible, though it offers no explanation.

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 error.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal without merit may so advise the court but must identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the Wende/Anders procedure, lists the issues counsel identified, confirms independent review of the record, and reaches a result consistent with the absence of a certificate of probable cause and the forfeiture of unobjected-to fines. It does not explain why the identified issues lack merit or cite the authorities on certificate-of-probable-cause and forfeiture that make the result obvious, leaving the reasoning to inference.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

Filed 9/10/20 P. v. Almaraz 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, D077238

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCE393591)

FRANCISCO C. ALMARAZ, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Robert O. Amador, Judge. Affirmed. Matthew Aaron Lopas, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Francisco Colin Almaraz entered into a plea agreement with a stipulated sentence. Almaraz pleaded guilty to transportation of cocaine for sale (Health and Saf. Code,1 § 11352, subd. (a)). Almaraz admitted a weight 1 All further statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code unless otherwise specified. allegation (§ 11370.4, subd. (a)(2)). The parties stipulated that Almaraz would serve eight years in local prison. The remaining charges and allegations were dismissed. Almaraz was sentenced to the stipulated eight-year term. The court ordered a $2,400 restitution fine and various fees and assessments. The defense did not object. Almaraz filed a timely notice of appeal but did not obtain a certificate of probable cause (Pen. Code, § 1237.5). 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 the court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Almaraz the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. STATEMENT OF FACTS In his change of plea, Almaraz admitted he transported in excess of four kilos of cocaine for purposes of sale. 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 three possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: 1. Was Almaraz’s plea constitutionally valid; 2. Did the court err by imposing fines, fees and assessments without holding a hearing on the defendant’s ability to pay; and 3. Was counsel ineffective for failing to object to the fines, fees and assessments.

2 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 Almaraz on this appeal. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

HALLER, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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