People v. Delacruz CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D077253 · 2021-01-11 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD280421
Trial judge: David M. Gill
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, 2026-10-13T05:16Z · confidence low

The trial court found the defendant guilty of attempted oral copulation of a child and committing a lewd act on a child, sentencing him to nine 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
Burden of proof in jury instructions “Whether the court used the wrong burden of proof in its instructions;”	unclear	not reached	unsure The appellate court identified this as a potential issue raised by counsel but stated it had reviewed the entire record and found no arguable issues for reversal, implying the instruction was correct or the error was harmless, though no specific analysis is provided.
Admission of prior molestation evidence “Whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence of a prior molestation;”	unclear	not reached	unsure The court listed this as a potential issue but concluded after independent review that no arguable issues for reversal existed, suggesting the evidence was properly admitted under Penal Code section 1108 or that any error was harmless.
Imposition of upper term sentence “Whether the trial court erred in imposing the upper term.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The court identified this as a potential issue but affirmed the judgment without specific discussion, indicating the sentencing was within the court's discretion or supported by the record.

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.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires counsel to file a brief identifying potential issues and the court to conduct an independent review of the record.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it follows the Wende/Anders protocol for reviewing appeals where counsel finds no arguable issues. However, it provides no substantive legal analysis for the specific issues identified by counsel, relying solely on the court's independent review to affirm.

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

After a bench trial, the San Diego Superior Court found Alessio Delacruz guilty of attempted oral copulation of a child under 14 (Pen. Code, §§ 288.7, subd. (b), 664) and a lewd act on a child under 14 (§ 288, subd. (a)), sentenced him to a determinate nine-year term (upper term), and imposed fines, fees, and assessments. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief identifying three possible issues, Delacruz 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
Judgment of conviction after bench trial (Wende independent review of entire record for arguable issues) “We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.”	unclear	correct	unsure The court followed the Wende/Anders procedure: counsel filed a no-issue brief, the defendant was invited to file his own brief and did not, and the court states it reviewed the entire record. The opinion recites the facts and the issues counsel flagged, but provides no substantive analysis, so its conclusion cannot be independently verified from the opinion itself.
Burden of proof applied by the trial court as factfinder (Anders issue 1) “Whether the court used the wrong burden of proof in its”	unclear	correct	unsure The court lists this as a potential issue considered by counsel but offers no discussion of what the trial court actually said about the burden of proof in a bench trial. Without the record, I cannot assess whether the implicit finding of no error is correct.
Admission of evidence of a prior molestation of a nine-year-old (Anders issue 2) “The prosecution also produced a witness who said Delacruz tricked him”	unclear	correct	unsure Propensity evidence of a prior sex offense is generally admissible in a sex-offense prosecution subject to Evidence Code section 352, and such rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion, but the opinion does not identify the statutory basis for admission or the trial court's analysis. The implicit no-error conclusion is plausible but unexplained.
Imposition of the upper term of nine years (Anders issue 3) “Whether the trial court erred in imposing the upper term.”	unclear	correct	unsure Sentencing choices are reviewed for abuse of discretion, and the opinion provides no information about the aggravating factors the trial court relied on or whether reasons were stated. The affirmance is not accompanied by any reasoning that can be evaluated.

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 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.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the required Wende/Anders procedure, recites the facts and procedural history, and lists the issues counsel considered, so the affirmance is procedurally regular and the result is defensible. It contains no substantive analysis of the three flagged issues (burden of proof, prior-molestation evidence, upper term), which is permitted in a Wende affirmance but leaves the reasoning unverifiable from the opinion alone.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 1/11/21 P. v. Delacruz 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, D077253

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD280421)

ALESSIO DELACRUZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, David M. Gill, Judge. Affirmed. John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. After a bench trial, the court found Alessio Delacruz guilty of attempted oral copulation of a child under the age of 14 years (Pen. Code,1 §§ 288.7, subd. (b) and 664) and committing a lewd act on a child under the age of 14 years (§ 288, subd. (a)). Delacruz was sentenced to a determinate 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. term of nine years in prison. The court also imposed various fines, fees, and assessments. Delacruz 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 Delacruz the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. STATEMENT OF FACTS The incident in this case took place when Delacruz’s family returned from an outing. Two of Delacruz’s nieces stayed at the house and the girls slept in Delacruz’s room where there were bunkbeds. Delacruz came to the bed of one girl and attempted to get her to touch his exposed penis. The girl cried. The child called for her mother. She later told her mother Delacruz told her to suck his private. A confrontation between Delacruz and the girl’s father took place. Delacruz appeared drunk and denied doing anything to the child. The prosecution also produced a witness who said Delacruz tricked him into oral copulation when he was nine years old. Delacruz testified in his defense. He said he had been drinking heavily on the day of the incident and has no recollection of trying to molest the child and denied he tried to force her to orally copulate him. 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, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel 2 has identified the following possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal. 1. Whether the court used the wrong burden of proof in its instructions; 2. Whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence of a prior molestation; and 3. Whether the trial court erred in imposing the upper term. 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 Delacruz 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