People v. Noble CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D077542 · 2020-12-15 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from an order
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCN351073, HCN1627
Trial judge: Harry M. Elias
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Judith L. Haller, Joan K. Irion

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T05:17Z · confidence high

The trial court denied Noble's petition for a writ of mandate, finding he failed to make a prima facie showing of a clear right to relief. The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende and finding no arguable issues for reversal.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of petition for writ of mandate “Petitioner has failed to make a prima facie showing of specific facts which would entitle him to Mandate relief under existing law.”	de novo	correct	agree with court The appellate court affirmed the denial, concluding that Noble failed to demonstrate a clear and certain right to the writ, which is the requisite standard for mandamus relief.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to identify arguable issues and the court to independently review the record for error when counsel finds none.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to withdraw from a criminal appeal by filing a brief identifying arguable issues and requesting independent court review.
relied: Payne v. Superior Court (1976) 17 Cal.3d 908 — Defines the purpose of a writ of mandate as compelling a court to perform a duty imposed by law when no other adequate remedy exists.
relied: Bradshaw v. Duffy (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 475 — States that failure to allege and prove a duty of the respondent to act will defeat a petitioner's right to mandamus relief.
relied: City Council of Santa Monica v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1962) 204 Cal.App.2d 68 — Holds that a writ of mandate issues only to compel performance of an act law specifically enjoins and the applicant's right must be clear and certain.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the Wende/Anders framework to review the record for error. It accurately cites the standard for mandamus relief and correctly affirms the trial court's denial based on the petitioner's failure to meet that standard.

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 San Diego Superior Court denied John Wesley Noble's petition for writ of mandate, which sought to compel rulings on previously denied motions to vacate his 2016 second degree murder conviction, finding he had alleged no facts or law establishing a clear and certain right to relief. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief, Noble 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
Denial of petition for writ of mandate for failure to state a prima facie case for mandate relief “Petitioner has failed to make a prima facie showing of specific facts which would entitle him to Mandate relief under existing law.”	unclear	correct	agree with court Mandate lies only to compel performance of a clear, present legal duty, and the trial court found Noble alleged no facts or law showing such a duty, noting his claim was unclear and that the motions he sought rulings on had already been denied. On the record described, there was nothing to compel, and the appellate court's independent Wende review found no arguable issue; the opinion does not disclose the petition's contents, so agreement rests on the trial court's uncontradicted description.
Failure to appoint counsel for Noble on his petition for writ of mandate “2. Did the court err in not appointing counsel for Nobel.”	unclear	correct	agree with court There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a postconviction collateral proceeding absent a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief, and the trial court found no showing whatsoever. The appellate court did not expressly analyze this issue, treating it only as a possible issue identified by counsel and finding it non-arguable after Wende review, which is a defensible but unexplained conclusion.

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.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal without merit may so advise the court but should identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
relied: Payne v. Superior Court (1976) 17 Cal.3d 908 — Mandate is available to compel a court to perform a duty imposed by law where there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.
missed: People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496 — Wende independent review is not required in an appeal from a postconviction order that is not the first appeal of right from a criminal conviction; the court may dismiss the appeal as abandoned if the defendant files no supplemental brief.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court applied the Wende/Anders procedure, offered Noble a chance to file his own brief, reviewed the record, and affirmed a facially correct denial of a mandate petition that alleged no clear legal duty. It did not explain why the two Anders issues identified by counsel were non-arguable or address whether Wende review even applies to an appeal from a postjudgment order, though conducting the review gave Noble more process than required and did not affect the result.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 12/15/20 P. v. Noble 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, D077542

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. Nos. SCN351073, HCN1627) JOHN WESLEY NOBLE, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Harry M. Elias, Judge. Affirmed. Russell S. Babcock, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2016, John Wesley Noble was charged with a murder which occurred in 1991. In October 2016, Noble pleaded guilty to second degree murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187, subd. (a)) and admitted an enhancement under 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. section 12022, subdivision (a)(1). He was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 15 years to life. Noble did not appeal either his plea or sentence. In February2020, Noble filed a petition for writ of mandate in the trial court seeking to have the court rule on motions to vacate his convictions which had previously been denied. The trial court denied the petition by written order which provided in part: “In criminal cases a Writ of Mandamus or Mandate is used to compel a court to perform a duty which is imposed by law when no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy is available. [(Civil Procedure Sections 1085-1086; Payne v. Superior Court (1976) 17 Cal. 3d 908, 925.)] Failure to allege and prove a duty of the respondent to act will defeat Petitioner’s right to relief. [(Bradshaw v. Duffy (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 475, 481.)]

“Here Petitioner has not alleged any facts or law which support his apparent claim that he is unlawfully detained because Real Party in Interest and Respondent lack personal and subject matter jurisdiction over him and the judgment against him is void. Further, it is unclear what his claim is.

“Petitioner has failed to make a prima facie showing of specific facts which would entitle him to Mandate relief under existing law. A Writ of Mandate issues only to compel performance of an act that law specifically enjoins; an applicant for writ must show that his right thereto is clear and certain. [(City Council of Santa Monica v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1962) 204 Cal.App.2d 68.)] As Petitioner has made no showing whatsoever, the Petition for Writ of Mandate is hereby denied.”

Noble filed a timely notice of appeal and requested a certificate of probable cause, which was denied by the court.

2 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 Noble the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.

DISCUSSION2 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, 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. Did Noble’s petition state a prima facie case for issuance of a writ of mandate; and 2. Did the court err in not appointing counsel for Nobel. We have reviewed the entire record as mandated by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Noble on this appeal.

2 The facts of the 1991 offense are not relevant to our review of the record in the present case. We will not include the traditional statement of facts. 3 DISPOSITION The order denying Noble’s petition for writ of mandate is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

HALLER, J.

IRION, J.

Cites, in this corpus

Bradshaw v. Duffy Civ. 22448 · 1980-04-10
People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12
Payne v. Superior Court L.A. 30455 · 1976-09-03
City Council v. Superior Court Civ. 26284 · 1962-05-24