People v. Truong CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D077154 · 2020-11-19 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD279053, SCD284235
Trial judge: Laura W. Halgren
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Judith L. Haller, Patricia Guerrero

Analysis

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

The trial court denied the defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty pleas and his Marsden motion for new counsel, and sentenced him to four years in prison. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, finding no arguable issues for reversal.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea “Did the court err in denying Truong’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea; and”	unclear	not reached	agree with court The court identified the issue in its Wende review but concluded it did not present an arguable issue for reversal, effectively affirming the trial court's denial without detailed analysis.
Denial of Marsden motion “Did the court err in denying Truong’s Marsden motion;”	unclear	not reached	agree with court The court listed the Marsden motion denial as a potential issue but determined it was not arguable on appeal, resulting in an affirmation of the trial court's decision.
Finding of mental competence “Did the trial court err in finding Truong mentally competent to stand trial;”	unclear	not reached	agree with court The court considered the competence finding as a potential issue during its Wende review but found no arguable error, thereby upholding the trial court's determination.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appellate counsel to file a brief identifying arguable issues and the court to conduct an independent review of the record when counsel finds no issues.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel who believes an appeal is wholly frivolous, requiring a brief identifying potential issues and court review.
relied: People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 — Establishes the standard for granting a motion for new counsel based on a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it strictly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for reviewing appeals where counsel identifies no issues. It correctly identifies the potential issues and states that the court performed the required independent review of the entire 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 Cody Truong's guilty pleas in two cases after two competency evaluations, denied his motion to withdraw the pleas and his Marsden motion, and imposed a stipulated four-year prison term. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief identifying four possible issues, Truong filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issue, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Finding that Truong was mentally competent to stand trial (after two competency evaluations) “Did the trial court err in finding Truong mentally competent to stand trial;”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion recites only that two competency evaluations preceded the pleas and that the court found no arguable issue on independent Wende review; it supplies no facts about the evaluations or the finding, so the conclusion cannot be independently tested from the opinion.
Denial of Truong's Marsden motion for substitute counsel “Did the court err in denying Truong's Marsden motion;”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion identifies the Marsden denial as a potential issue flagged under Anders but gives no account of the hearing or the grounds; the court's finding of no arguable issue rests on its own record review, which is not described.
Denial of Truong's motion to withdraw his guilty pleas “Did the court err in denying Truong's motion to withdraw his guilty plea; and”	unclear	correct	unsure A certificate of probable cause was obtained so the issue was reviewable, but the opinion provides no facts about the basis for the motion or the trial court's reasons, leaving no way to evaluate the ruling beyond the court's statement that it found nothing arguable.
Sentencing without compliance with Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (h) (realignment) “Did the court err in not complying with Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (h).”	unclear	correct	unsure The sentence was a stipulated four-year prison term resolving two cases; the opinion does not discuss which counts, if any, were eligible for county jail under section 1170(h) or why prison was proper, so the court's silent rejection of the issue cannot be verified from the opinion alone.

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 error before affirming.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal lacking in merit may file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, which the court then reviews.
relied: People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 — A defendant seeking substitution of appointed counsel must be permitted to state the reasons, and the court must inquire into the complaints before ruling.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion follows the Wende/Anders procedure: counsel identified possible issues, the defendant was invited to file a supplemental brief and did not, and the court states it reviewed the entire record and found no arguable issue, which is all that procedure requires. The result is defensible on its face, but the opinion contains no analysis of the four flagged issues, so its correctness cannot be confirmed from the text alone.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 11/19/20 P. v. Truong 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, D077154

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. Nos. SCD279053, SCD284235) CODY TRUONG, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Laura W. Halgren, Judge. Affirmed. Shaghayegh Dinata-Hanson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Cody Truong entered into a plea agreement with a stipulated sentence to resolve two criminal cases. After two separate evaluations of his mental competence, Truong entered guilty pleas. Specifically, Truong pleaded guilty to evading an officer with reckless driving (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a); count 1), resisting an executive officer (Pen. Code,1 § 69; count 2), harm to a police animal (§ 600, subd. (a); count 6), unlawful taking and driving a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a); count 8), and felony vandalism (§ 594, subd. (a)(b)(1), case No. SCD284235). Truong was sentenced to a total term of four years in prison for the two cases.

Truong’s motion to withdraw his guilty pleas and his Marsden2 motion were denied. Truong filed a timely notice of appeal and obtained 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 counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issue for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Truong the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. STATEMENT OF FACTS In case No. SCD279053, Truong stated he “resisted an officer lawfully performing duty by force or fear; evaded an officer [with] lights and sirens on and drove with willful and wanton disregard for public safety; injured police dog lawfully performing its duty; and drove a vehicle valued over $950 [without] owner’s consent [and with] intent to deprive.” In case No. SCD284235, Truong stated he maliciously damaged property of another causing damage over $400.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. 2 People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118. 2 DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and requests this court 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, which were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: 1. Did the trial court err in finding Truong mentally competent to stand trial; 2. Did the court err in denying Truong’s Marsden motion; 3. Did the court err in denying Truong’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea; and 4. Did the court err in not complying with Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (h). 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 Truong on this appeal.

3 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

HALLER, J.

GUERRERO, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12
People v. Marsden Crim. 14119 · 1970-02-26