People v. Jacome CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from an order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. PLBD1845
- Trial judge
- Robert Trentacosta
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Judith L. Haller, O'Rourke
Analysis
The trial court accepted a stipulation from the defendant, who waived an evidentiary hearing and agreed to parole revocation and a specific term of custody. The Court of Appeal affirmed the order 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
Order finding parole violation and imposing additional custody based on stipulation“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 Wende/Anders standard of review, which requires the appellate court to independently review the record for any arguable issues of error. The court found no such issues, thereby affirming the trial court's order. This is the standard procedure for Wende appeals where counsel has filed a brief indicating no arguable issues. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to file a brief identifying arguable issues or, if none exist, to request the court to independently review the record for error.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires counsel to file a brief identifying arguable issues or, if none exist, to request the court to independently review the record for error.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for handling appeals where appointed counsel finds no arguable issues. The court explicitly states it reviewed the entire record and found no errors, which is the required standard of review in this context.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court revoked Alexander Jacome's parole, reinstated it, and imposed a stipulated period of custody after Jacome, through a Penal Code section 977 stipulation, waived his personal appearance and an evidentiary hearing and admitted the violation. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief, Jacome 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
Order finding Jacome violated parole and imposing additional custody based on his stipulated admission, waiver of evidentiary hearing, and section 977 waiver of personal appearance“We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The court applied Wende independent review rather than a conventional standard of review. Counsel flagged three potential issues (knowing and intelligent admission, counsel's authority to admit the petition and waive presence by stipulation under section 977, and voluntariness), and the court found none arguable. Nothing in the opinion suggests a defect in the stipulated resolution, which mirrors prior revocation proceedings this same court had already affirmed. With no record facts recited that would undercut the stipulation, there is no basis to identify a specific legal error, so agreement with the court is warranted, though the opinion's analysis is conclusory. |
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 before affirming.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal frivolous must file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal to assist the court's review.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the standard Wende/Anders procedure, lists counsel's identified potential issues, confirms the defendant was given a chance to file his own brief, and affirms after independent review, which is a defensible result for a stipulated parole revocation. It does not, however, address whether Wende independent review is even required in an appeal from a post-judgment parole revocation order, nor does it offer any analysis of the three Anders issues counsel flagged, leaving the reasoning thin.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
record incompleteOpinion
Filed 3/4/21 P. v. Jacome 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, D078140
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. PLBD1845)
ALEXANDER JACOME,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Robert Trentacosta, Judge. Affirmed. Richard Schwartzberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. This appeal arises from the latest in a series of parole revocation proceedings in the Superior Court. In the current proceeding, like the earlier ones, appellant waived an evidentiary hearing and stipulated to revocation, reinstatement, and a specific term of custody. In 2017, Alexander Jacome was convicted of battery on a transit officer (Pen. Code,1 § 243.3) and received a two year prison sentence. He was paroled in August 2017. There have been multiple revocation proceedings in the trial court. In each case, Jacome waived evidentiary hearing. Jacome appealed from the revocation proceeding in June 2019, and this court affirmed the order in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Jacome (Sept. 30, 2019, D076087) [nonpub. opn.].) In 2020, another revocation petition was filed. The petition was resolved by stipulation filed under section 977 (waiver of personal appearance). Jacome filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating 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 Jacome the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. STATEMENT OF FACTS Jacome stipulated he violated the conditions of parole, waived evidentiary hearing, and agreed to a period of custody. 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 has identified the following possible issues which were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal:
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 1. Whether the record supports a finding appellant made a knowing and intelligent admission to the petition; 2. Whether counsel could enter an admission to the petition and waive appellant’s presence by stipulation; and 3. Whether appellant’s admission of the parole violation was voluntary, knowing and intelligent. 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 Jacome on this appeal. DISPOSITION The order finding Jacome violated his parole and imposing additional custody is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
HALLER, J.
O’ROURKE, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12