People v. Greer CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D077831 · 2021-03-18 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment and orders
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD284495
Trial judges: Laura W. Halgren; Kimberlee A. Lagotta; Polly H. Shamoon
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Cynthia Aaron, Joan K. Irion

Analysis

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

The trial court denied Daniel Greer's two Marsden motions to replace appointed counsel and his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, finding no arguable issues for reversal after an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of Marsden motions to replace appointed counsel “The Marsden motions were denied, and the court denied the request to withdraw his guilty plea.”	unclear	not reached	agree with court The appellate court did not conduct a substantive review of the trial court's denial of the Marsden motions. Instead, it classified the issue as one of ineffective assistance of counsel that requires facts outside the record, stating that the remedy lies in a petition for habeas corpus rather than direct appeal.
Denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea “The Marsden motions were denied, and the court denied the request to withdraw his guilty plea.”	unclear	not reached	agree with court The appellate court did not analyze the merits of the motion to withdraw the plea. It grouped this with the Marsden motions and ineffective assistance claims, concluding that the issues were not arguable on direct appeal because they required examination of facts outside the record.

Authorities

relied: People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 — Establishes the standard for a defendant's motion to replace appointed counsel (Marsden motion).
relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appellate counsel to file a brief identifying arguable issues and the court to independently review the record when no issues are identified.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires counsel to identify arguable issues and the court to review the record to ensure no constitutional errors were overlooked.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound in its application of the Wende/Anders framework, correctly identifying that claims of ineffective assistance of counsel generally require facts outside the record and are thus inappropriate for direct appeal. However, it is somewhat conclusory in its dismissal of the motion to withdraw the plea, failing to explicitly state the standard of review or why the specific grounds for withdrawal (if any were stated in the record) were not arguable, relying instead on a blanket assertion that no arguable issues were found.

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 Greer's guilty plea to attempted murder with a stipulated seven-year term, denied two Marsden motions, denied his motion to withdraw the plea, imposed the stipulated sentence, and denied a certificate of probable cause. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief, Greer filed a supplemental brief alleging ineffective assistance, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed the judgment and orders.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of Greer's two Marsden motions to replace appointed counsel “The Marsden motions were denied, and the court denied the request to withdraw the guilty plea.”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion states that hearings were held on both Marsden motions and that the court's Wende/Anders review of the entire record disclosed no arguable issue, but it does not describe the hearings, state the abuse-of-discretion standard, or explain why the denials were proper. The result is plausible for a Wende affirmance, but the opinion gives too little detail to independently verify it.
Denial of Greer's motion to withdraw his guilty plea “He does not discuss the fact his request for a certificate of probable cause was denied.”	unclear	correct	agree with court Because Greer's request for a certificate of probable cause was denied, a challenge to the validity of the plea (including denial of a motion to withdraw it) is not cognizable on appeal under section 1237.5 and Panizzon/Mendez; the court alluded to this but did not cite the governing authority or expressly hold the issue barred. Affirmance is the correct outcome, though the reasoning is thin.
Claims that trial counsel was ineffective (inadequate investigation, time, and advice), as raised in Greer's supplemental brief “The question of whether counsel was ineffective will require examination of facts and events outside of the record on this appeal. Greer’s remedy, if any, lies in a petition for habeas corpus.”	unclear	not reached	agree with court Ineffective assistance claims resting on matters outside the appellate record are properly relegated to habeas corpus, consistent with settled California practice; the court's disposition of these claims is correct even though it cited no authority for the point.

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 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal lacks merit should identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal to assist the court's review.
relied: People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 — A defendant seeking substitution of appointed counsel is entitled to a hearing at which he may state the reasons for the request.
missed: People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68 — A defendant who pleads guilty may not challenge the validity of the plea on appeal, including issues going to the plea's validity, without obtaining a certificate of probable cause under section 1237.5.
missed: People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084 — Section 1237.5 and rule requirements for a certificate of probable cause are to be applied strictly; absent a certificate, an appeal attacking the validity of a guilty plea is not operative.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court followed the Wende/Anders procedure, addressed Greer's supplemental brief, and reached the defensible result of affirmance, correctly directing record-dependent ineffective assistance claims to habeas corpus. It did not, however, cite or apply the section 1237.5 certificate-of-probable-cause authority (Panizzon, Mendez) that bars review of the plea-withdrawal and plea-related Marsden claims, and it gave no substantive description of the Marsden hearings or the applicable standard of review.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 3/18/21 P. v. Greer 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, D077831

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD284495)

DANIEL GREER,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment and orders of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Polly H. Shamoon, Kimberlee A. Lagotta, and Laura W. Halgren, Judges. Affirmed. Daniel Greer, in pro. per.; and Shaghayegh Dinata-Hanson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Daniel Greer entered into a plea agreement, under the terms of which he pleaded guilty to unpremeditated attempted murder (Pen. Code,1 §§ 187, subd. (a) and 664). The parties stipulated to a seven-year prison term and 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. the remaining charges and allegations were dismissed. Greer was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement. Greer brought two motions to replace appointed counsel and one request to withdraw his guilty plea. (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden).) The trial court held hearings on both Marsden motions and on the request to withdraw his guilty plea. The Marsden motions were denied, and the court denied the request to withdraw the guilty plea. Greer filed a timely notice of appeal. The court denied his request for 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 issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Greer the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal. Greer has responded with a supplemental brief which we will discuss below. STATEMENT OF FACTS In his change of plea, Greer stated he attempted to kill another person. 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 that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: 1. Did the court err on denying Greer’s Marsden motions; 2. Did the record show ineffective assistance of counsel caused Greer to reject the first plea offer; and 2 3. Did the court err in denying Greer’s motion to withdraw his guilty pleas? In his supplemental brief, Greer complains about several perceived wrongs. He declares he did not commit the crime. He does not discuss the fact his request for a certificate of probable cause was denied. Greer follows the list of possible issues which were contained in Appellant’s opening brief. He complains about the denial of his two Marsden motions and the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. His basic theme in his submission is that trial counsel was ineffective. Trial counsel allegedly did not do adequate investigation, did not spend enough time with him, and failed to adequately advise him. The question of whether counsel was ineffective will require examination of facts and events outside of the record on this appeal. Greer’s remedy, if any, lies in a petition for habeas corpus. Greer’s submission has not raised any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. 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 Greer on this appeal.

3 DISPOSITION The judgment and orders are affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

AARON, J.

IRION, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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