P. v. Muhammad CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D077572 · 2020-11-24 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from orders
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD150409
Trial judge: Charles G. Rogers
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed and remanded with directions.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), O'Rourke, Cynthia Aaron

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T05:18Z · confidence high

The trial court denied Muhammad's motions to withdraw his guilty plea and to correct the allocation of custody credits in the abstract of judgment. The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of these motions but remanded the case with directions to correct the abstract of judgment to accurately reflect the 25 years to life sentence.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea “Nothing in his supplemental brief raises an arguable issues for reversal on appeal.”	unclear	not reached	agree with court The court did not apply a specific standard of review (such as abuse of discretion) to the trial court's denial of the motion to withdraw the plea. Instead, the court relied on the Wende/Anders framework to determine that the appeal was 'plainly without any potential merit' and that the appellant's arguments were unsupported by the record or procedurally barred because they were not raised in the trial court. The court effectively affirmed the denial based on the lack of arguable issues in the record rather than a substantive legal analysis of the withdrawal motion.
Denial of motion to correct abstract of judgment (custody credits) “The orders denying the motions to withdraw the guilty plea and to correct the abstract of judgment are affirmed.”	unclear	not reached	agree with court The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion to correct custody credits without explicitly stating a standard of review. The court's review was conducted under the Wende/Anders mandate to find no arguable issues. While the court remanded to correct the abstract regarding the sentence term (25 years to life vs. life with parole), it affirmed the denial of the specific motion regarding custody credits, implying no error was found in the trial court's handling of that specific request within the scope of the Wende review.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appellate counsel to identify arguable issues or, if none exist, to file a brief stating so and asking 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 wholly frivolous, requiring a brief identifying any possible issues and a request for independent review by the court.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound in its application of the Wende/Anders framework to a pro se appeal where counsel found no arguable issues. The court correctly identified that the appellant's new arguments were not raised below and were unsupported by the record, justifying the affirmation of the trial court's orders. The remand to correct the abstract of judgment to reflect the actual sentence imposed is a proper exercise of the court's supervisory authority to ensure the record matches the judgment.

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

In January 2020, nearly twenty years after Muhammad pleaded guilty to a Penal Code section 288, subdivision (b)(1) offense with a section 667.61 enhancement and received 25 years to life, the trial court denied his motions to withdraw the plea and to correct custody credits in the abstract of judgment. On appeal, counsel filed a Wende brief, the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record and Muhammad's supplemental brief, found no arguable issue, affirmed the orders, but remanded with directions to correct the abstract of judgment, which misstated the sentence as life with the possibility of parole rather than 25 years to life.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea filed nearly twenty years after sentencing “The orders denying the motions to withdraw the guilty plea and to correct the abstract of judgment are affirmed.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The court conducted independent Wende/Anders review and found no arguable issue. Muhammad's supplemental contentions (an alleged promise of lifetime parole, the nunc pro tunc correction of an unauthorized $10,000 parole revocation fine to the $500 restitution fine amount, and a claimed discrepancy between the abstract and the oral pronouncement) were not raised below, were unsupported by the record, and would not in any event justify vacating a plea two decades later. The conclusion is defensible, though the opinion does not address whether the trial court even had jurisdiction to entertain such a late motion or whether the denial was an appealable order.
Denial of motion to correct allocation of custody credits in the abstract of judgment “In January 2020, Muhammad filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea and to correct the allocation of custody credits in the abstract of judgment. His motions were denied by the trial court.”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion states only that the credits motion was denied and that independent review disclosed no arguable issue; it gives no facts about what credits were awarded or claimed. With no reasoning or record detail in the opinion, I cannot verify the correctness of the trial court's ruling, although nothing suggests error.
Abstract of judgment reflecting a sentence of life with the possibility of parole rather than the 25-years-to-life term orally imposed “During our review of the record, we discovered the abstract of judgment does not accurately state the sentence imposed.”	de novo	error (other)	agree with court The appellate court itself identified a clerical discrepancy between the oral pronouncement (25 years to life) and the abstract (life with possibility of parole) and remanded for correction. Appellate courts may order correction of such clerical errors at any time because the oral pronouncement controls; the court did not cite People v. Mitchell for this proposition but the remedy ordered is consistent with it.

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 issues.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous should file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal; the court noted counsel technically did not comply but found no prejudice to its review.
missed: People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181 — The oral pronouncement of judgment controls over the abstract of judgment, and appellate courts may order correction of abstracts that do not accurately reflect the oral judgment; this authority supports the remand the court ordered but was not cited.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court properly conducted independent review, answered the supplemental brief's contentions, and corrected an abstract error it discovered, reaching a defensible result. It did not, however, address whether the denial of a nonstatutory motion to withdraw a plea twenty years after judgment was appealable or whether Wende review was even required for this postjudgment appeal, and it cited no authority for its sua sponte correction of the abstract.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 11/24/20 P. v Muhammad 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, D077572

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD150409)

KWESI KHARY MUHAMMAD,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Charles G. Rogers, Judge. Affirmed and remanded with directions. Kwesi Muhammad, in pro. per.; and Kendall Dawson Wasley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2000, Kwesi Khary Muhammad pleaded guilty to one count of violation of Penal Code1 section 288, subdivision (b)(1) and admitted an 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. enhancement under section 667.61, subdivision (a), (c), and (d). He was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 25 years to life.2 In January 2020, Muhammad filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea and to correct the allocation of custody credits in the abstract of judgment. His motions were denied by the trial court. Muhammad filed a notice of appeal. 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 Muhammad the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal. Muhammad has responded by filing a supplemental brief. We will discuss that brief below. DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to review the record for error. Technically, counsel has not complied with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) in that counsel has not identified any possible issues that may have been considered by counsel. However, this appeal from a motion to set aside a guilty plea and to correct the calculation of credits, brought almost 20 years after sentence, is plainly without any potential merit. Failure to fully comply with Anders has not hindered our review of this record. Muhammad’s supplemental brief addresses supposed issues that were not raised in the trial court. First, he claims he agreed to lifetime parole, 2 During our review of the record, we discovered the abstract of judgment does not accurately state the sentence imposed. It reflects a sentence of life with the possibility of parole. The sentence imposed by the trial court was 25 years to life. Although we will affirm the trial court’s orders, we will remand with directions to correct the abstract of judgment. 2 which is not the correct parole period. Based upon that allegation, he argues his 2000 guilty plea should be vacated. Nothing in the record supports such a claim. In any event, the period of parole can be addressed by Muhammad if, and when, he is found suitable for parole. Next, Muhammad notes that, at some point, the court issued a nunc pro tunc order correcting an error in the suspended parole revocation fine under section 1202.45. The restitution fine was originally set at $500, but the parole revocation fine, which should have been $500 was set at $10,000, an unauthorized amount. Based on the correction of the fine amount, Muhammad claims he is entitled to have his plea vacated. Finally, he claims the abstract of judgment reflecting the lower amount for the parole revocation fine does not reflect the court’s oral pronouncement in 2000. He claims he is now entitled to have his plea vacated and be remanded for resentencing. We have carefully examined Muhammad’s proposed issues and, again, reviewed the record. Nothing in his supplemental brief raises an arguable issues for reversal on appeal. 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 Muhammad on this appeal.

3 DISPOSITION The orders denying the motions to withdraw the guilty plea and to correct the abstract of judgment are affirmed. The case is remanded to the trial court to correct the abstract of judgment to reflect a sentence of 25 years to life. When the abstract is amended, the court shall forward the amended abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

O'ROURKE, J.

AARON, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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