People v. Alexander CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D077661 · 2021-03-17 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCS299726
Trial judge: Garry G. Haehnle
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Judith L. Haller, Truc T. Do

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T05:12Z · confidence high

The trial court accepted a guilty plea to resisting an executive officer, admitted a prior strike, and sentenced the defendant to 32 months pursuant to a stipulated plea agreement. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after conducting 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 judgment following Wende 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 review, examining the entire record for any arguable issues. It found none, specifically noting that competent counsel represented the appellant. The court affirmed the judgment.
Competency to stand trial “Alexander was later found competent to stand trial.”	abuse of discretion	not reached	unsure The court identified competency as a potential issue raised by Anders counsel but did not provide specific analysis, stating it found no arguable issues after reviewing the record. The trial court's finding of competency is presumed correct absent a clear showing of error, which the appellate court did not find.
Voluntariness of plea “2. Whether Alexander’s plea was free and voluntary.”	abuse of discretion	not reached	unsure The court identified the voluntariness of the plea as a potential issue raised by Anders counsel but did not provide specific analysis, stating it found no arguable issues after reviewing the record. The trial court's acceptance of the plea is presumed correct absent a clear showing of error, which the appellate court did not find.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appellate counsel to file a brief identifying potential issues and the court to conduct an independent review of the record when counsel finds no arguable issues.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to file a brief identifying arguable issues and the court to review the record independently to ensure no errors are overlooked.
relied: People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 — Establishes the procedure for a defendant to request replacement of appointed counsel.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for reviewing a case where appointed counsel finds no arguable issues. It explicitly states that the court reviewed the entire record and found no errors, which is the required standard of review in such circumstances.

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, after suspending proceedings under Penal Code section 1368 and later finding Alexander competent, and after denying his Marsden motion, accepted his guilty plea to resisting an executive officer (§ 69) with an admitted strike and imposed the stipulated 32-month sentence. On appeal, counsel filed a Wende brief, Alexander 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 Alexander was competent to stand trial after section 1368 proceedings and a mental examination “Several months prior to the guilty plea, the court suspended criminal proceedings under section 1368. Alexander was given a mental examination. Alexander was later found competent to stand trial.”	unclear	correct	unsure The court flagged competency as an Anders issue and, after independent Wende review, found no arguable error. The opinion recites that the trial court followed the section 1368 procedure (suspension, examination, finding), but gives no detail about the evidence or the basis of the finding, so the reader cannot independently confirm substantial evidence supported it. Nothing in the opinion suggests error.
Acceptance of the guilty plea as free and voluntary, with a stated factual basis, and imposition of the stipulated 32-month sentence “Under that agreement the parties stipulated to a 32-month sentence (one-third the lower term, doubled due to the strike prior).”	unclear	correct	agree with court The plea form supplied a factual basis, the sentence matched the stipulated term, and the court identified voluntariness as a potential issue but found nothing arguable after reviewing the record. The sentence computation described (one-third the lower term, doubled) is consistent with a subordinate-term-style stipulated figure the parties agreed to; because the defendant received the bargained sentence and raised no personal contentions, the conclusion appears supportable, though the opinion provides little detail.
Denial of Alexander's Marsden motion to replace appointed counsel “Also, before the guilty plea, Alexander made a motion to replace appointed counsel. (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.) The court conducted a hearing and denied the motion.”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion notes a Marsden hearing was held and the motion denied, and the court's full-record Wende review found no arguable issue. Marsden denials are reviewed for abuse of discretion, but the opinion does not state the standard or describe the hearing, so the conclusion cannot be independently verified from the opinion alone.

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 wholly frivolous should so advise the court and identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
relied: People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 — A defendant seeking substitution of appointed counsel must be given an opportunity to explain the basis for the request at a hearing.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the required Wende/Anders procedure: it recites the charges, plea, sentence, and procedural history, notes the Anders issues counsel identified, confirms the defendant was invited to file his own brief, and states that the court reviewed the entire record. It is brief and provides no detail on the competency finding or Marsden hearing, so the affirmance is defensible but cannot be fully evaluated from the opinion's text.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 3/17/21 P. v. Alexander 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, D077661

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCS299726)

KENDOL J. ALEXANDER, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Garry G. Haehnle, Judge. Affirmed. Jeffrey Manning-Cartwright, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Kendol J. Alexander pleaded guilty to resisting or obstructing an executive officer (Pen. Code,1 § 69) and admitted a strike prior (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)) as part of a plea agreement. Under that agreement the parties stipulated to a 32-month sentence (one-third the lower term, doubled due to 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. the strike prior). The remaining charges and allegations were dismissed. Alexander was sentenced to a 32-month term as stipulated by the parties. Several months prior to the guilty plea, the court suspended criminal proceedings under section 1368. Alexander was given a mental examination. Alexander was later found competent to stand trial. Also, before the guilty plea, Alexander made a motion to replace appointed counsel. (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.) The court conducted a hearing and denied the motion. Following his sentencing, Alexander filed a timely notice of appeal and obtained a certificate of probable cause (§ 1237.5). 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 issue for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Alexander the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. STATEMENT OF FACTS The factual basis for the guilty plea was stated in the change of plea form: “willfully and unlawfully resisted an executive officer with force. The executive officer was lawfully performing his duties.” 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 possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: 1. Whether the trial court erred in determining Alexander was competent to stand trial; and 2 2. Whether Alexander’s plea was free and voluntary. 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 Alexander on this appeal. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

HALLER, J.

DO, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12
People v. Marsden Crim. 14119 · 1970-02-26