People v. Celaya CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of Imperial County · No. JCF001465
- Trial judge
- Marco D. Nunez
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- delinquency
- Panel
- Patricia D. Benke (author), Richard D. Huffman, Sr., William S. Dato
Analysis
The trial court revoked the defendant's probation for violating a condition to obey all laws by committing an assault, and resentenced him to 180 days in county jail. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, finding no arguable issues on independent review under Wende and Anders.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Probation revocation based on violation of condition to obey all laws (assault)“We conclude there are no arguable issues which would result in modification or reversal of the probation revocation.” | unclear | not reached | unsure The court performed an independent review of the record pursuant to Wende and Anders but did not explicitly state the standard of review (e.g., substantial evidence) or analyze the sufficiency of the evidence in detail, merely concluding no arguable issues existed. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires independent review of the record by the court of appeal when appointed counsel finds no arguable issues.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to file a brief identifying any arguable issues and the court to independently review the record.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is a standard Wende/Anders review where the court states it independently reviewed the record and found no arguable issues. It does not provide specific legal analysis or apply a standard of review to the underlying facts, relying solely on the procedural framework of Wende and Anders.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe Imperial County Superior Court found, after a contested hearing held jointly with a preliminary hearing on new charges, that defendant violated the obey-all-laws condition of his felony burglary probation by committing an assault, then revoked and reinstated probation, imposed the upper term of three years with execution suspended, and ordered 180 days in county jail. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief flagging sufficiency of the evidence, defendant 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
Finding that defendant violated probation by committing an assault (sufficiency of the evidence, the Anders issue identified by counsel)“At the conclusion of the hearing, the court found defendant had violated his probation by committing an assault.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The opinion does not articulate a standard, but a probation violation need only be proved by a preponderance and the finding is reviewed deferentially. The facts recited support the finding under any deferential standard: Agent Martinez heard a scream, saw defendant with his hands on or near a bleeding victim, defendant and his companion fled when the officer approached, and both had blood on their clothing. The conflict between the two officers over which man wore the yellow jacket does not undermine the finding because the trial court found both men assaulted the victim and the evidence placed defendant at the scene, fleeing, with blood on him. The Wende disposition is consistent with that record. |
Revocation and reinstatement of probation with imposition of the upper term of three years, execution suspended, and 180 days in county jail“The previously suspended imposition of sentence was converted to the upper term of three years in state prison.” | unclear | correct | unsure The opinion recites that defendant agreed to be sentenced the same day and does not describe the trial court's stated reasons for selecting the upper term or any objection below. Imposing an upper term ordinarily requires a statement of reasons, and the opinion is silent on that point; under Wende the court implicitly found no arguable error, but the opinion gives no detail allowing an outside reader to verify this. The result is plausible, particularly given defendant's agreement to immediate sentencing and the absence of any objection noted, but the record as presented is too thin to confirm. |
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 issues exist.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal 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.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the standard Wende procedure, identifies the Anders issue raised by counsel, confirms defendant was invited to and did not file a supplemental brief, and recites facts that readily support the violation finding under the preponderance standard. It does not state the governing standard for reviewing a probation revocation or address the officers' conflicting identifications or the basis for the upper-term selection, which leaves modest gaps in an otherwise defensible result.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
record incompleteOpinion
Filed 10/29/20 P. v. Celaya 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, D077466
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. JCF001465)
BENITO LUCAS CELAYA,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Imperial County, Marco D. Nunez, Judge. Affirmed.
Patrick Dudley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent. We find no error in this appeal filed pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders). FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On December 4, 2018, defendant pled no contest to second degree felony burglary, in violation of Penal Code section 459. On January 3, 2019, imposition of his sentence was suspended and he was placed on three years of formal probation, which included a condition he “obey all laws.” On March 7, 2020, Agent Martinez was sitting in his patrol car at a street corner in Calexico when he heard a scream. He drove several blocks and noticed three men: one was wearing a yellow jacket, one was wearing a grey sweater, and one was wearing a white T-shirt. The man in the white T- shirt was crawling on his hands and knees toward the street curb. He was bleeding from his face and nose. The man in the yellow jacket appeared to be taking his hands off the man in the white T-shirt. His hands were toward the man in the white T-shirt as if letting go of him or was about to grab him. The man in the grey sweater was standing about 5–10 feet away from the man in the yellow jacket. Agent Martinez approached the men in his vehicle. The men in the yellow jacket and grey sweater began walking away. Then as Martinez drove closer to them they started running away. Martinez followed them and both men eventually stopped running and were detained by Martinez, who identified defendant as the man in the yellow jacket. Martinez testified that defendant’s yellow jacket had blood on the jacket, on his hands, and face. The man in the grey sweater had blood on his clothing. Officer Gonzales, a second officer who arrived on the scene, believed defendant was the man in a “greenish/grayish” sweater, and he saw nothing on defendant’s hands to indicate he had been in a fight. He had what appeared to be blood on his pants, however. Gonzales identified the co- perpetrator as the man wearing a yellow jacket. On March 9, 2020, the Imperial County Probation Department filed a petition for revocation of defendant’s probation granted on January 3, 2019, which contained the condition he violate no laws. A probation violation 2 evidentiary hearing was held on April 17, 2020, simultaneously with a preliminary hearing on new charges. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court found defendant had violated his probation by committing an assault. The court determined that the victim was assaulted by both defendant and his co-perpetrator. Defendant agreed to be sentenced that day. The court then revoked and reinstated probation. The previously suspended imposition of sentence was converted to the upper term of three years in state prison. Execution of the sentence was suspended and defendant was ordered to serve 180 days in county jail. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal and an amended notice stating the appeal was from a contested probation revocation. ANALYSIS Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738 indicating he has thoroughly reviewed the record and sees no arguable ground on which this case can be modified or reversed. He asks this court, pursuant to Wende and Anders, to independently review the record to determine if there are grounds to modify or reverse the case. To assist the court in its review, counsel, pursuant to Anders, points our attention to whether there is sufficient evidence to support the court’s finding defendant violated his probation. Counsel and the court have notified defendant he may file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. Defendant has not done so. We have independently reviewed the record and briefing, as well as the Anders inquiry raised by defendant. We conclude there are no arguable issues which would result in modification or reversal of the probation revocation. Defendant has been represented by competent counsel on appeal.
3 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.
BENKE, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
HUFFMAN, J.
DATO, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12