People v. Soto CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D076761 · 2020-09-15 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD276830
Trial judge: Laura H. Parsky
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Patricia D. Benke (author), Judith D. McConnell, William S. Dato

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T05:22Z · confidence high

The trial court accepted defendant's guilty plea to 11 counts of sex offenses and imposed a sentence of 50 years to life. 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 judgment following Wende/Anders review “We have examined the record and conclude there are no arguable issues on appeal that would result in reversal or modification.”	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, specifically addressing the defendant's potential argument regarding the benefit of the plea bargain by noting the dismissal of 56 counts and the concurrent/stayed sentences. The reasoning is consistent with established California appellate procedure for appointed counsel appeals.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Establishes the duty of appointed appellate counsel to file a brief identifying arguable issues or, if none exist, to request the court to independently review the record.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to file a brief identifying any arguable issues, even if frivolous, and to request leave to withdraw, allowing the court to conduct an independent review.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for appointed counsel appeals. It addresses the specific issue raised by counsel (plea benefit) with factual support from the record (dismissal of counts) and correctly affirms the judgment.

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 defendant's guilty plea to 11 of 67 child sex-offense counts and imposed the stipulated sentence of two consecutive 25-years-to-life terms (counts 15 and 64) with the remaining nine counts concurrent or stayed. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief, the defendant filed nothing, 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 negotiated guilty plea and imposition of the stipulated 50-years-to-life sentence (judgment of conviction) “We have examined the record and conclude there are no arguable issues on appeal that would result in reversal or modification.”	unclear	correct	agree with court This is a Wende independent review; the court does not state a standard of review but reports that it examined the whole record and found no arguable issue. Nothing in the opinion suggests any defect in the plea, the certificate of probable cause, or the stipulated sentence, and a stipulated sentence accepted in exchange for dismissal of 56 counts is not an arguable basis for reversal. The record quoted is thin, so agreement rests on the court's representation that it reviewed the record.
Whether defendant received a benefit from the plea bargain given his age and parole eligibility date (issue identified by counsel for Anders review) “Based on our review, defendant did receive a benefit.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The court reasoned that defendant faced 67 serious sex-offense counts, 56 were dismissed, and all but two of the remaining counts were stayed or run concurrently, so the bargain conferred a real benefit regardless of his age at parole eligibility under section 3055. That reasoning is straightforward and the opinion identifies no legal defect in the plea; the court properly declined to speculate about future changes in parole law.

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 to determine whether any arguable issue exists.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous may so advise the court and request leave to withdraw, accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, with the court then deciding after full examination of the record.
missed: People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 — A Wende opinion should contain a brief description of the facts and procedural history, the crimes of which the defendant was convicted, and the punishment imposed, and should address any issues the defendant personally raises; the opinion here refers readers to counsel's brief for the factual basis and identifies the convictions only by count number rather than by offense.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court followed the Wende/Anders procedure, offered defendant the chance to file his own brief, addressed the one issue counsel flagged, and independently reviewed the record, which supports affirmance. It did not cite People v. Kelly and stated the facts and offenses only by reference to counsel's brief and count numbers, a minor omission from the content Kelly expects in a Wende opinion.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 9/15/20 P. v. Soto 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, D076761

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD276830)

BRAULIO SOTO,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Laura H. Parsky, Judge. Affirmed.

Carl Fabian, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Appellate counsel has filed a lengthy, detailed factual background of this case. Briefly summarizing, on May 16, 2018, defendant was charged in a 24-count complaint alleging sex offenses against his girlfriend’s two minor children, O.O., a male, and K.O., a female. A preliminary hearing was held on February 8, 2019. Based on the testimony elicited there, the prosecution increased the charges to 67 counts in an amended complaint: 39 counts involved O.O. and 28 counts involved K.O.. Defendant was ordered bound over on all 67 counts. On June 11, 2019, an information was amended to charge 33 counts involving O.O. covering the time period when he was between 10 through 15 years old, and 34 counts involving K.O. covering the time period when she was 6 through 12 years old. The factual allegations need not be set forth. On July 11, 2019, defendant entered a plea of guilty to 11 counts: six counts involved minor O.O. (counts 6, 12, 15, 16, 18, and 32), and five counts involved minor K.O. (counts 54, 57, 60, 63, 64). The stipulated terms of the plea bargain provided for 50 years to life for counts 15 and 64 (consecutive terms of 25 years to life) and concurrent and stayed terms on the remaining nine counts (6, 12, 16, 18, 32, 54, 57, 60 and 63) At pages 7–13 of his brief, appellate counsel thoroughly sets forth the factual basis of each count, and we need not repeat them here. After applying for and receiving a certificate of probable cause, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. ANALYSIS Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California ((1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders). We offered defendant the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. Appellate counsel indicates he has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks this court to review the full record for error. To assist the court for purposes of an Anders review, he directs our attention to whether, based mainly on his age, defendant received 2 a benefit in exchange for his plea of guilty. Counsel points out that under current law (§ 3055, subd. (a)), defendant will be eligible for parole in 2042 because he will then be 60 years old and will have served 25 years in custody. Based on our review, defendant did receive a benefit. When he entered the plea, defendant was faced with 67 counts of serious sex offenses against children; that 56 of those counts were dismissed; and sentence was stayed or run concurrently on all but two counts. We cannot predict what changes may be made in the law between now and 2042. We have examined the record and conclude there are no arguable issues on appeal that would result in reversal or modification. Defendant has been represented by competent counsel on appeal. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

BENKE, J.

WE CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

DATO, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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