People v. Olivares CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of Imperial County · No. JCF002874
- Trial judge
- Christopher J. Plourd
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- delinquency
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Judith L. Haller, Patricia D. Benke
Analysis
The trial court accepted a no-contest plea to transportation of a controlled substance for sale, imposed a four-year split sentence with specific fines and fees, and removed a religious supervision condition upon objection. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, finding no arguable issues for reversal.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Affirmance of judgment following Wende review“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 | not reached | agree with court The court applied the standard Wende/Anders review, examining the record for any arguable errors in the sentence, custody credits, or fines. The court found no such errors, leading to an affirmance. This is the standard procedure for appointed appellate counsel who cannot identify issues. |
Imposition of fines, fees, and assessments“The court made a finding of ability to pay and imposed various fines, fees, and assessments.” | abuse of discretion | not reached | agree with court The opinion notes the trial court made a finding of ability to pay before imposing financial penalties. The appellate court reviewed this as a potential issue but found no error. The finding of ability to pay is a prerequisite for imposing fines under California law. |
Removal of Narcotics Anonymous condition“Olivares objected to the condition because Narcotics Anonymous is religion based. The condition was imposed, but later removed.” | abuse of discretion | not reached | agree with court The trial court initially imposed a condition requiring attendance at a religious organization, which the defendant objected to on First Amendment grounds. The court subsequently removed the condition. The appellate court did not identify this as an error, likely because the condition was ultimately removed, curing any potential constitutional violation. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to review the record for error if no issues are identified, and the court to conduct an independent review.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel who cannot find arguable issues, including filing a brief identifying potential issues and requesting court review.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it follows the established Wende/Anders protocol for cases where appointed counsel cannot identify issues. It correctly states that the court reviewed the entire record and found no arguable errors in the specific areas flagged by counsel (sentence consistency, credits, and fines).
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionGuadalupe Olivares pleaded no contest to transportation of a controlled substance for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)) and received the agreed four-year split sentence (two years custody, two years mandatory supervision), with the trial court making an ability-to-pay finding before imposing fines, fees, and assessments and removing a challenged Narcotics Anonymous condition. On appeal, counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief, Olivares 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
Imposition of the four-year split sentence pursuant to the negotiated plea agreement“Olivares was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The opinion states the sentence matched the agreed term (two years custody, two years community supervision) and no certificate of probable cause was obtained, so the validity of the plea itself was not before the court; nothing in the opinion suggests a deviation from the bargain. The court's conclusion is consistent with its description of the record, though the record described is thin. |
Calculation of custody credits“Whether Olivares’s custody credits were properly calculated” | unclear | correct | agree with court Counsel flagged credits as a possible Anders issue and the court, after independent record review, found no arguable error. The opinion gives no figures, so I cannot verify the calculation independently, but nothing in the opinion indicates error. |
Finding of ability to pay and imposition of fines, fees, and assessments“The court made a finding of ability to pay and imposed various fines, fees, and assessments.” | unclear | correct | agree with court Because the trial court expressly found ability to pay before imposing the monetary obligations, the due-process concerns raised in recent ability-to-pay case law are not implicated on this record. The opinion does not itemize the amounts or statutory bases, so the reviewing court's conclusion that the fees were authorized rests on its own record review rather than reasoning stated in the opinion. |
Imposition of Narcotics Anonymous attendance as a condition of mandatory supervision over a religion-based objection“The condition was imposed, but later removed.” | unclear | not reached | agree with court The trial court removed the condition after the objection, so any Establishment Clause issue was mooted before appellate review and the Court of Appeal properly did not treat it as an arguable issue. No error remained to correct. |
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 lacking in merit must file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, to assist the reviewing court.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion follows the standard Wende/Anders procedure: counsel identified potential issues, the defendant was invited to and did not file a supplemental brief, and the court independently reviewed the record and found no arguable issue, which is all the law requires. The disposition is defensible on the record described, though the opinion is conclusory and does not explain the scope of review in the absence of a certificate of probable cause or itemize the fines and fees it found authorized.
Opinion
Filed 10/22/20 P. v. Olivares 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, D077125
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. JCF002874)
GUADALUPE OLIVARES,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Imperial County, Christopher J. Plourd, Judge. Affirmed. Kenneth J. Vandevelde, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Guadalupe Olivares entered into a plea agreement under the terms of which she pleaded no contest to transportation of a controlled substance for sale (Health and Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)). The parties agreed to a four- year term with a split sentence of two years in custody and two years in community supervision. The remaining charges and allegations were dismissed. Olivares was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement. One of the conditions of supervision was to attend Narcotics Anonymous. Olivares objected to the condition because Narcotics Anonymous is religion based. The condition was imposed, but later removed. The court made a finding of ability to pay and imposed various fines, fees, and assessments. Olivares 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 Olivares the opportunity to file her own brief on appeal, but she has not responded. STATEMENT OF FACTS According to the change of plea, Olivares transported methamphetamine into California for purpose 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 the following possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: 1. Whether the sentence imposed was consistent with the plea agreement; 2. Whether Olivares’s custody credits were properly calculated; and 3. Whether the fines, fees, and assessments were authorized.
2 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 Olivares on this appeal. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.
WE CONCUR:
BENKE, Acting P. J.
HALLER, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12