People v. Pepper CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCS300220
- Trial judge
- Francis M. Devaney
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Judith D. McConnell, O'Rourke
Analysis
The trial court accepted a guilty plea for vehicular manslaughter, granted probation, and imposed a 365-day custody condition after rejecting alternatives. The appellate court affirmed the judgment after conducting a Wende review of the record and finding no arguable issues for reversal.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Imposition of 365 days in custody as a condition of probation“The court considered but rejected alternatives to custody and imposed 365 days in custody as a condition of probation.” | unclear | not reached | unsure The opinion does not explicitly state the standard of review applied to the sentencing decision, though it implies a general review for error under Wende. |
Acceptance of guilty plea“Whether there was a factual basis for the guilty plea; 2. Whether appellant was properly advised of her constitutional rights before entering her guilty plea” | unclear | not reached | unsure The court listed these as potential issues considered but did not provide specific analysis or a standard of review for the plea's validity. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Mandates that the appellate court must review the entire record for error when appointed counsel files a Wende brief.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to file a brief identifying arguable issues and the court to conduct an independent review of the record.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it follows the required Wende/Anders protocol for reviewing a record where counsel finds no arguable issues. However, it provides no substantive legal analysis for the specific sentencing or plea issues identified, relying solely on the negative finding of error.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court accepted Pepper's guilty plea to vehicular manslaughter (Pen. Code, § 192, subd. (c)(1)), dismissed the remaining charges, granted three years' probation, and after considering and rejecting alternatives to custody imposed 365 days in jail as a probation condition. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief, Pepper 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 (factual basis and advisement of constitutional rights)“1. Whether there was a factual basis for the guilty plea; 2. Whether appellant was properly advised of her constitutional rights before entering her guilty plea;” | unclear | correct | agree with court The court conducted an independent Wende/Anders review and found no arguable issue. Pepper did not obtain a certificate of probable cause, so challenges to the validity of the plea would not be cognizable in any event (Pen. Code, § 1237.5), and nothing in the opinion suggests any defect in the plea colloquy. The opinion recites no record details, so agreement rests on the court's representation that it reviewed the entire record. |
Grant of probation with 365 days custody as a condition after considering and rejecting alternatives to custody“The court considered but rejected alternatives to custody and imposed 365 days in custody as a condition of probation.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The plea agreement called for probation and for the court to consider alternatives to custody; the court did so and exercised its discretion to impose a year in jail, a sentence within the plea bargain and authorized by law. The appellate court found no arguable issue after Wende review, and nothing in the opinion indicates the custody term exceeded the agreement or statutory limits. |
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 before affirming.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal frivolous may so advise the court but should identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion follows the required Wende/Anders procedure: counsel identified potential issues, the defendant was invited to file her own brief and did not, and the court states it reviewed the entire record and found no arguable issue. It does not discuss the absence of a certificate of probable cause or explain why the identified issues lack merit, but a Wende affirmance need not do so where the defendant files no supplemental brief.
Opinion
Filed 10/19/20 P. v. Pepper 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, D077124
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCS300220)
ADRIANA C. PEPPER, Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Francis M. Devaney, Judge. Affirmed. Justin Behravesh, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Adriana C. Pepper pleaded guilty to one count of vehicular manslaughter (Pen. Code, § 192, subd. (c)(1)). The remaining charges and allegations were dismissed. The parties agreed Pepper would receive probation and the court would consider alternatives to custody. Pepper was granted probation for three years. The court considered but rejected alternatives to custody and imposed 365 days in custody as a condition of probation. The court made subsequent orders to permit administration of certain prescribed medication to Pepper while she was in jail. Pepper filed a timely notice of appeal but did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. 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 Pepper the opportunity to file her own brief on appeal, but she has not responded. STATEMENT OF FACTS Pepper drove a vehicle in a grossly negligent manner causing the death of another. 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 the following possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: 1. Whether there was a factual basis for the guilty plea; 2. Whether appellant was properly advised of her constitutional rights before entering her guilty plea; 3. Whether the sentence imposed was authorized; and 4. Whether the court erred in sending appellant to custody instead of an alternative. 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 Pepper on this appeal.
2 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
O'ROURKE, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12