People v. De Los Reyes CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D077585 · 2020-11-04 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD275519
Trial judge: Esteban Hernandez
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Cynthia Aaron, Patricia Guerrero

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T05:19Z · confidence low

The trial court denied De Los Reyes's motion to withdraw his guilty plea and sentenced him to 19 years to life. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, finding no reasonably arguable issues for reversal.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea “Whether the court abused its discretion by denying De Los Reyes’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea;”	abuse of discretion	not reached	unsure The appellate court did not analyze the merits of the trial court's denial of the motion to withdraw the plea. Instead, it relied on the Wende/Anders procedure to review the entire record and concluded that no reasonably arguable issues for reversal existed, thereby affirming the judgment without addressing the specific standard of review or the trial court's discretion in this instance.
Denial of certificate of probable cause “Whether the court abused its discretion in denying De Los Reyes’s request for a certificate of probable cause;”	abuse of discretion	not reached	unsure The opinion lists the denial of the certificate of probable cause as one of six potential issues identified by appellate counsel. However, the court's discussion states that it reviewed the record and found no reasonably arguable issues, effectively bypassing a specific analysis of the trial court's decision to deny the certificate.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appellate counsel to file a brief identifying arguable issues or, if none exist, to request the court to review the record for error.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel who believes an appeal is frivolous, requiring a brief identifying potential issues and a request for independent court review.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the Wende/Anders framework for reviewing appeals where counsel finds no arguable issues. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' analysis because it fails to explicitly address the specific legal standards (such as the requirements for withdrawing a plea under People v. Superior Court (Romero) or the validity of the plea itself) that were listed as potential issues by counsel, relying solely on the broad statement that no errors were found in the record.

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 De Los Reyes's guilty plea to premeditated attempted murder with firearm and gang enhancements, denied his pre-sentencing motion to withdraw the plea, sentenced him to the stipulated 19 years to life with fines and fees, and denied his request for a certificate of probable cause. 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
Denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea “Prior to sentencing, De Los Reyes moved to withdraw his guilty plea, which motion was denied.”	abuse of discretion	correct	agree with court Counsel framed the issue as abuse of discretion and the court found nothing arguable. The opinion gives no facts about the grounds for the motion, so the correctness of the ruling cannot be independently tested from this record. Moreover, because the certificate of probable cause was denied, a challenge to the denial of a motion to withdraw the plea would not be cognizable on appeal under section 1237.5 in any event, which the opinion does not say but which supports the result.
Imposition of fines, fees, and assessments at sentencing “The court also imposed various fines, fees, and assessments without objection.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The court notes the fines and fees were imposed without objection and found no arguable error after independent review. Nothing in the opinion identifies the amounts or any ability-to-pay issue, so there is no basis to find error; failure to object ordinarily forfeits such claims.
Sentencing to the stipulated term of 19 years to life and entry of judgment on the plea (Wende independent review of the entire record) “We have not discovered any reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal based on the record before us.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The court followed the Wende/Anders procedure: counsel filed a no-issue brief listing possible issues, the defendant was invited to file his own brief and did not, and the court independently reviewed the record. The sentence matched the plea bargain. The procedure described complies with Wende and Anders, and nothing in the opinion suggests an arguable error.

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 wholly frivolous must file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, and the court must then examine the record itself.
missed: People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084 — Absent a certificate of probable cause under Penal Code section 1237.5, an appeal following a guilty plea may not raise issues going to the validity of the plea, and such issues must be dismissed rather than reached.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion correctly follows the Wende and Anders procedure and reaches a defensible result, but it lists plea-validity issues (constitutional validity of the plea, denial of the motion to withdraw) as potential issues without noting that, with the certificate of probable cause denied, those issues are not cognizable on appeal at all under section 1237.5 and Mendez. The result of affirmance is unaffected, but the opinion skips the threshold cognizability point and provides almost no factual detail about the rulings reviewed.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 11/4/20 P. v. De Los Reyes 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, D077585

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD275519)

DANIEL A. DE LOS REYES, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Esteban Hernandez, Judge. Affirmed. Leslie Ann Rose, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Daniel De Los Reyes pleaded guilty to premeditated attempted murder (Pen. Code,1 §§ 187, subd. (a), 664, 189). De Los Reyes admitted he personally discharged a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)) and admitted the crime was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. subd. (b)(5)). As part of the plea agreement, the parties stipulated to a term of 19 years to life. Prior to sentencing, De Los Reyes moved to withdraw his guilty plea, which motion was denied. De Los Reyes was sentenced to the agreed upon term of imprisonment. The court also imposed various fines, fees, and assessments without objection. De Los Reyes filed a timely notice of appeal. His request for a certificate of probable cause was denied. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), indicating she has not identified any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered De Los Reyes the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. STATEMENT OF FACTS De Los Reyes admitted that he, along with and for the benefit of a criminal street gang attempted to murder the victim with premeditation and deliberation involving the use of a firearm. DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to review the record for error. Apparently, counsel reviewed multiple possible issues before determining she could not identify any reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal. 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 listed six possible issues as follows: 1. Whether De Los Reyes’s plea was constitutionally valid; 2. Whether De Los Reyes’s waiver of the right to appeal was valid;

2 3. Whether the court abused its discretion by denying De Los Reyes’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea; 4. Whether the court abused its discretion in denying De Los Reyes’s request for a certificate of probable cause; 5. Whether there was a factual basis for the guilty plea; and 6. Whether defense counsel was effective. We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have also considered all of the possible issues raised by counsel. We have not discovered any reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal based on the record before us. De Los Reyes has been represented by competent counsel on this appeal. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

AARON, J.

GUERRERO, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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