People v. Sanchez CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of Imperial County · No. JCF38446
- Trial judge
- Poli Flores, Jr.
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- delinquency
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Cynthia Aaron, Patricia Guerrero
Analysis
The trial court revoked Sanchez's probation and imposed a previously suspended four-year prison sentence after finding he violated terms by terminating anger management classes, contacting the victim, and failing to report. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, finding no arguable issues for reversal during its independent review of the record.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Revocation of probation and imposition of suspended sentence“The court declined to reinstate Sanchez on probation. It sentenced Sanchez to the four-year term, which had been imposed then suspended.” | unclear | not reached | unsure The appellate court did not apply a specific standard of review (such as substantial evidence or abuse of discretion) because it was conducting a Wende/Anders review. The court stated it reviewed the entire record and found 'no arguable issues for reversal,' effectively affirming the trial court's decision without analyzing the merits of the specific legal arguments regarding the revocation. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to review the record for arguable issues when no issues are identified, and the court to independently review the record if counsel finds none.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to file a brief identifying potentially meritorious issues and request leave to withdraw, requiring the court to review the record.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for cases where appointed counsel identifies no arguable issues. However, it provides no substantive legal analysis of the trial court's decision, relying entirely on the court's independent review of the record to affirm the judgment.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual disposition unusual dispositionThe trial court, after a contested hearing, found Sanchez violated probation (termination from anger management classes, contact with the victim, failure to report), declined to reinstate probation, and executed the previously imposed but suspended four-year prison term. On appeal, counsel filed a Wende brief, Sanchez 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
Finding that Sanchez violated probation and decision to revoke probation, refuse reinstatement, and execute the suspended four-year sentence“Whether the trial court erred in revoking probation and in refusing to reinstate Sanchez on probation.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The court did not articulate a standard of review; it conducted an independent Wende/Anders review of the record. The record summarized in the opinion shows probation officer testimony supporting each violation, Sanchez's own admission of contacting the victim, and a history of three prior admitted violations, which readily supports both the violation finding (preponderance standard) and the discretionary refusal to reinstate. Nothing in the opinion suggests an abuse of discretion or legal error, though the opinion is too brief to permit full independent verification. |
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 — Counsel filing a no-merit brief should identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal to assist the court's independent review.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion follows the Wende/Anders procedure correctly: counsel identified a possible issue, the defendant was offered a chance to file his own brief, and the court independently reviewed the record and found no arguable issues, which is consistent with a record showing multiple admitted and proven violations. It is a minimal opinion that does not articulate the standard governing revocation findings or reinstatement decisions, but no analysis beyond the Wende review is required and the result is defensible.
Opinion
Filed 2/19/21 P. v. Sanchez 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, D077454
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. JCF38446)
RODOLFO McCLELLAN SANCHEZ, Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Imperial County, Poli Flores, Jr., Judge. Affirmed. Denise M. Rudasill, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In October 2017, Rodolfo Sanchez pleaded guilty to injuring his girlfriend (Pen. Code,1 § 273.5). The court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed Sanchez on probation on various terms and conditions.
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. In March 2018, Sanchez admitted violating his probation; the court revoked and then reinstated Sanchez on probation. In October 2018, Sanchez again admitted violating probation. The court revoked probation, imposed a four-year prison term, but suspended the execution of the sentence and reinstated Sanchez on probation. In March 2019, Sanchez again admitted violating probation. Probation was revoked, and Sanchez was reinstated on probation. In March 2020, the court held a contested revocation hearing on the probation officer’s latest request to revoke probation. Following the evidentiary hearing, the trial court found Sanchez violated his probation because he was terminated from his anger management classes, had contact with the victim, and failed to report to the probation officer. The court declined to reinstate Sanchez on probation. It sentenced Sanchez to the four-year term, which had been imposed then suspended. Sanchez filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), indicating that counsel 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 Sanchez the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. STATEMENT OF FACTS We will include only a summary of the final revocation proceeding. Sanchez has never appealed regarding his 2017 guilty plea, nor has he appealed any of the previous revocation proceedings. At the evidentiary hearing, the probation officer testified Sanchez had been terminated from the anger management classes for excessive absences, 2 Sanchez admitted contacting the victim, and did not report to the probation officer as directed. Sanchez testified he didn’t understand the classes, and he had transportation difficulties that prevented him from reporting to the probation 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 reviewing the record, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified the following possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Whether the trial court erred in revoking probation and in refusing to reinstate Sanchez on probation. 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 Sanchez on this appeal.
3 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