People v. Walker CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D077294 · 2021-01-11 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD281269
Trial judge: Robert F. O'Neill
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Patricia D. Benke, Patricia Guerrero

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T05:16Z · confidence high

The trial court accepted a guilty plea to multiple charges, including carjacking and robbery, and imposed a seven-year prison term along with fines and fees, later striking the restitution and parole revocation fines upon a motion. 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
Affirmance of the judgment following a Wende/Anders review “We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.”	de novo	not reached	agree with court The court applied the standard Wende/Anders review, examining the entire record for any arguable issues. It concluded that no such issues existed, thereby affirming the lower court's judgment. This is the standard procedure for appointed appellate counsel who cannot identify reversible error.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to review the record for error when no arguable issues are identified, and the court to conduct an independent review.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to file a brief identifying potentially meritorious issues when they believe an appeal is frivolous.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for reviewing a criminal appeal where counsel identifies no arguable issues. It explicitly states that the court reviewed the entire record and found no error, which is the required standard of review in this context.

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 Walker's guilty plea to all counts and admissions of all enhancement allegations under an indicated sentence of no more than seven years, which the prosecutor did not join, imposed a seven-year term with fines and fees, and later struck the restitution and parole revocation fines on a section 1237.2 motion after finding extraordinary reasons. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief identifying four possible issues, Walker 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
Acceptance of guilty plea to all counts and allegations under a court-indicated maximum sentence of seven years, imposed over the prosecutor's non-agreement “Walker entered a guilty plea to all of the counts and admitted all allegations after the trial court agreed to impose a sentence of not more than seven years in prison.”	de novo	correct	agree with court Because Walker pleaded to every charge and admitted every allegation, the court's commitment was an indicated sentence rather than a plea bargain requiring prosecutorial consent, which is permissible under People v. Clancey even in a serious felony case. The opinion does not discuss this or the absence of a certificate of probable cause, but on the facts recited the result is defensible.
Imposition of a seven-year prison sentence consistent with the indicated sentence and authorized by law “Walker was sentenced to a seven-year prison term as agreed by the trial court.”	de novo	correct	agree with court The sentence matched the indicated term, and counsel's Anders issues included whether the sentence was authorized; the court's independent review found no arguable issue. The opinion does not disclose the component terms, so the conclusion cannot be verified from the opinion alone, but nothing recited suggests an unauthorized sentence.
Calculation of custody credits “3. Whether the custody credits were properly calculated; and”	de novo	correct	agree with court Counsel flagged credits as a possible issue and the court found none after reviewing the whole record. The opinion gives no figures, so there is nothing to disagree with but also nothing to independently confirm.
Imposition of fines, fees and assessments, and later striking of the $1200 restitution fine and parole revocation fine under section 1237.2 for extraordinary reasons “Later, in response to a motion under section 1237.2, the court exercised its discretion and found extraordinary reasons not to impose a restitution fine and a parole revocation fine.”	de novo	correct	agree with court Section 1202.4(b) permits the court to decline a restitution fine upon finding compelling and extraordinary reasons, and the parole revocation fine under section 1202.45 must track the restitution fine, so striking both together was consistent with the statutes. The modification favored the defendant and the court's Wende review found no remaining arguable issue regarding the other fees and assessments.

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 — Counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous should identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal to assist the court's independent review.
missed: People v. Clancey (2013) 56 Cal.4th 562 — A trial court may give an indicated sentence, without the prosecutor's agreement, when the defendant pleads guilty to all charges and admits all allegations, because an indicated sentence is not a plea bargain subject to section 1192.7's restrictions.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court followed the Wende/Anders procedure, recited the facts and procedural history, listed counsel's possible issues, invited a supplemental brief, and independently reviewed the record, which is all the law requires in this posture. It did not, however, mention the indicated-sentence framework of Clancey or the certificate of probable cause requirement despite the plea being accepted over the prosecutor's non-agreement, which is the one unusual feature of the case.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 1/11/21 P. v. Walker 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, D077294

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD281269)

JORON ANTONIO WALKER,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Robert F. O’Neill, Judge. Affirmed. Kenneth J. Vandevelde, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Joron Antonio Walker was charged with carjacking (Pen. Code,1 § 215, subd. (a)); robbery (§ 211); assault with force likely to cause great bodily 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)); unlawful taking and driving a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)); receiving a stolen vehicle (§ 496d); and a misdemeanor count of resisting arrest (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)). In addition, it was alleged that three counts were committed with the use of a deadly weapon (§ 12022, subd. (b)(2)) and that Walker personally inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). Walker entered a guilty plea to all of the counts and admitted all allegations after the trial court agreed to impose a sentence of not more than seven years in prison. The prosecutor did not agree with the plea and did not sign the change of plea form. Walker was sentenced to a seven-year prison term as agreed by the trial court. The court imposed a restitution fine of $1200 as well as the same amount for the suspended parole revocation fine (§§ 1202.4, subd. (b) and 1202.45). The court also imposed various fees and assessments. Later, in response to a motion under section 1237.2, the court exercised its discretion and found extraordinary reasons not to impose a restitution fine and a parole revocation fine. The court struck both fines and modified the judgment. Walker filed a timely 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 Walker the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. STATEMENT OF FACTS In his change of plea form, Walker admitted taking the vehicle by force and fear using an Airsoft gun. He also admitted assaulting the victim and 2 inflicting great bodily injury on the victim. He acknowledged the vehicle was worth more than $950 and also admitted he resisted a lawful order from the police officer. DISCUSSION 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 of the record, 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 merits of this appeal: 1. Whether the sentence imposed was consistent with the plea agreement; 2. Whether the sentence imposed was authorized; 3. Whether the custody credits were properly calculated; and 4. Whether the fines, fees, and assessments imposed were authorized. 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 Walker on this appeal.

3 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

BENKE, Acting P. J.

GUERRERO, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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