People v. Mitchell CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D077293 · 2020-09-15 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCN397890
Trial judge: Carlos O. Armour
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), O'Rourke, Patricia Guerrero

Analysis

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

The trial court accepted a guilty plea to burglary, imposed a stipulated eight-month sentence, and ordered restitution and fines after finding the defendant had the 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
Affirmance of the judgment following a Wende review “We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have specifically considered the possible issues raised 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 of law or fact. It concluded that none of the seven issues identified by counsel rose to the level of an arguable issue for reversal, thereby affirming the judgment. This is the standard procedure for appointed appellate counsel who cannot identify meritorious issues.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to review the record for arguable issues and file a brief if none are found, prompting the court to conduct an independent review.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the federal constitutional framework for appointed counsel's withdrawal and the court's independent review of the record in criminal appeals.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it strictly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for reviewing a record where counsel identifies no meritorious issues. The court explicitly states it reviewed the entire record and considered the specific issues flagged by counsel, satisfying the requirement for independent judicial review.

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 Mitchell's guilty plea to burglary (Pen. Code, § 459) under a plea agreement with a stipulated eight-month consecutive term, imposed a $300 restitution fine plus fees and assessments with an ability-to-pay finding, and ordered $17,406.54 in victim restitution. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief, Mitchell 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 guilty plea and waiver of rights (including appellate waiver) as constitutionally valid with a sufficient factual basis “In his change of plea, Mitchell admitted he entered a business with the intention to steal property of another valued greater than $950.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The opinion recites that Mitchell admitted the elements of burglary with intent to steal over $950 and that he waived his right to appeal; no certificate of probable cause was obtained, so plea-validity challenges would in any event be non-cognizable under section 1237.5. Nothing in the opinion suggests a defect in the plea or waiver.
Finding that Mitchell had the ability to pay the $300 restitution fine and the fees and assessments “The court found Mitchell had the ability to pay the fines, fees, and assessments.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The trial court made an express ability-to-pay finding, which forecloses the kind of due process objection recognized in recent appellate case law; the total assessed was under $1,000 and Mitchell was a sentenced prisoner. The opinion does not detail the evidentiary basis, but a Wende review found nothing arguable and the record as described supports that.
Victim restitution order in the amount of $17,406.54 “The court ordered restitution to the victim in the amount of $17,406.54.”	abuse of discretion	correct	unsure Counsel flagged whether the court abused its discretion in setting the restitution amount and the appellate court found no arguable issue after reviewing the record. The opinion gives no facts about how the figure was derived, so I cannot independently confirm, but nothing in the opinion indicates error.
Calculation of custody credits “Were Mitchell’s custody credits validly calculated; and”	unclear	correct	unsure The court considered this as one of the Anders issues and found nothing arguable. The opinion provides no credit figures, so there is no basis to disagree.
Overall judgment after independent Wende/Anders review of the entire record “We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The court followed the Wende procedure: counsel filed a no-issue brief identifying Anders points, the defendant was invited to file a supplemental brief and did not, and the court reviewed the entire record. The opinion satisfies the minimal requirements for a Wende affirmance.

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 wholly frivolous should file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal to assist the court's review.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly applies the Wende/Anders procedure: it recites the procedural history and the plea, notes the Anders issues counsel considered, confirms Mitchell was offered and declined the chance to file a supplemental brief, and states the court reviewed the entire record. It does not elaborate on the lack of a certificate of probable cause or the appellate waiver as independent bars, but no elaboration was required given the no-issue finding.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

Filed 9/11/20 P. v. Mitchell CA4/1 Received for posting on 9/15/20 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, D077293

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN397890)

LEHMAN FRANK MITCHELL,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Carlos O. Armour, Judge. Affirmed. Leslie Ann Rose, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Lehman Frank Mitchell entered into a plea agreement with a stipulated sentence. He pleaded guilty to one count of burglary (Pen. Code,1 § 459) and agreed he intended to steal property valued in excess of $950. The parties stipulated Mitchell would be sentenced to an eight-month term to be 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. served consecutively to a prison term already imposed in San Bernardino County. Mitchell waived his right to appeal. Mitchell was sentenced in the San Diego case since he was already a sentenced prisoner when he was picked up on the San Diego case. The court imposed a $300 restitution fine and several fees and assessments in a total amount less than $1,000. The court ordered restitution to the victim in the amount of $17,406.54. The court found Mitchell had the ability to pay the fines, fees, and assessments. Mitchell filed a timely notice of appeal but did not request 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 she has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel requests this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Mitchell the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. STATEMENT OF FACTS In his change of plea, Mitchell admitted he entered a business with the intention to steal property of another valued greater than $950. 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, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified a multitude of issues that counsel considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: 1. Whether Mitchell’s guilty plea was constitutionally valid; 2. Whether Mitchell’s waiver of rights was valid;

2 3. Did the court err in determining Mitchell had the ability to pay the fines, fees, and assessments; 4. Whether the court abused its discretion in setting the amount of the restitution order; 5. Was there a sufficient factual basis for the guilty plea; 6. Were Mitchell’s custody credits validly calculated; and 7. Did Mitchell’s counsel provide ineffective assistance. We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have specifically considered the possible issues raised by counsel. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Regarding the possible issues raised by counsel, our evaluation of the record satisfies us none of the possible issues rises to the status of being an arguable issue for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Mitchell on this appeal. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

O'ROURKE, J.

GUERRERO, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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