People v. Padilla CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCE386973
- Trial judge
- John M. Thompson
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Patricia D. Benke (author), Judith D. McConnell, Joan K. Irion
Analysis
The trial court found the defendant insane at the time of the crimes, committed him to the state hospital system, and dismissed the misdemeanor vandalism conviction. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of defense request to instruct jury on imperfect self-defense/defense of another“1) Whether the trial court erred in denying the defense’s request to instruct the jury on imperfect self-defense/defense of another” | unclear | not reached | unsure The court stated it reviewed the entire record and the specific Anders issues raised but did not provide any analysis, standard of review, or conclusion regarding this specific issue, merely stating it found no arguable issues for reversal. |
Exclusion of evidence of defendant's mental illness during the guilt phase“2) Whether the trial court erred in excluding evidence of defendant’s mental illness during the guilt phase of the trial” | unclear | not reached | unsure The court listed this as an issue to consider under Anders but provided no reasoning, standard of review, or specific holding on the matter, relying instead on the blanket statement that no arguable issues were discovered. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appellate counsel to conduct an independent review of the record to identify arguable issues when no issues are raised by the defendant.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed appellate counsel to file a brief identifying no arguable issues while still reviewing the record.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound in that it follows the required Wende/Anders protocol by stating that the court reviewed the entire record and considered the specific issues raised by counsel. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' opinion because it fails to provide any specific legal analysis or reasoning for why the two identified issues (self-defense instruction and mental illness evidence) were not arguable, relying solely on the negative conclusion.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionAfter a jury convicted Arthur Padilla of assault with a deadly weapon and misdemeanor vandalism and then found him insane at the time of the offenses, the trial court found he had not regained sanity, committed him to the state hospital system with a maximum confinement of 13 years, and dismissed the misdemeanor count. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief identifying two possible issues (denial of an imperfect self-defense/defense-of-another instruction and exclusion of mental illness evidence at the guilt phase); the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Judgment of commitment following verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity (Wende/Anders independent review of the entire record)“We have reviewed the entire record, as required by Wende, and considered the Anders issues raised by defendant. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal or modification on appeal.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The court followed the Wende procedure: counsel filed a no-issue brief, defendant was notified of his right to file a supplemental brief and did not, and the court independently reviewed the record. Nothing in the opinion suggests a procedural defect in that review, and the described facts (an unprovoked beating with a metal bar followed by breaking the victim's window) amply support the verdicts. The opinion's own reasoning is too thin to evaluate anything beyond compliance with Wende, but the disposition is the standard and expected one. |
Denial of defense request to instruct the jury on imperfect self-defense/defense of another“1) Whether the trial court erred in denying the defense’s request to instruct the jury on imperfect self-defense/defense of another” | unclear | correct | unsure The opinion does not analyze this issue; it simply states that no arguable issue was found. Independently, the ruling appears correct: imperfect self-defense is a doctrine that reduces murder to voluntary manslaughter and is not a defense to assault with a deadly weapon, and the Supreme Court has held that a belief in the need for defense that is purely delusional (as the facts here suggest, with defendant shouting about a wife and little girl who were not present) cannot support imperfect self-defense but is a matter for the sanity phase. Because the opinion gives no reasoning or authority, I cannot say its reasoning supports the result, only that the result is defensible. |
Exclusion of evidence of defendant's mental illness during the guilt phase“2) Whether the trial court erred in excluding evidence of defendant’s mental illness during the guilt phase of the trial.” | unclear | correct | unsure The opinion offers no analysis. Independently, the ruling appears defensible: in a bifurcated trial under Penal Code section 1026, evidence of insanity is reserved for the sanity phase, and Penal Code section 28 permits mental illness evidence at the guilt phase only on whether the defendant actually formed a required specific intent or mental state. Assault with a deadly weapon is a general intent crime and misdemeanor vandalism requires only malicious conduct, so there was no specific intent element the evidence could have negated. Without the court's reasoning, however, I can only say the result is consistent with settled law. |
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 to determine whether any arguable issue exists.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous may so advise the court and request to withdraw, accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion correctly follows the Wende/Anders procedure, recites the facts and procedural history, confirms that defendant was given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief, and reports an independent review of the record. It offers no analysis of the two Anders issues flagged by counsel, which is permissible in a Wende affirmance but leaves the reader unable to verify the court's reasoning on those points.
Opinion
Filed 4/6/21 P. v. Padilla 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, D077255
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCE386973)
ARTHUR PADILLA,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, John M. Thompson, Judge. Affirmed.
Eric E. Reynolds, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent. The San Diego District Attorney in an information filed March 20, 2019, charged defendant Arthur Padilla with assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code,1 § 245, subd. (a)(1), count 1) and misdemeanor vandalism (§ 594, subd. (a)(b)(2)(A), count 2). The information alleged that defendant had a 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. prior conviction for a serious felony (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)); and a prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i) & 1170.12).2 At the conclusion of the guilt phase, the jury found defendant guilty on both counts. At the conclusion of the sanity phase, the jury found defendant was insane at the time of the commission of the crimes. On February 13, 2020, the trial court found defendant had not yet regained his sanity, ordered him committed to the state hospital system with a maximum confinement of 13 years, and dismissed the misdemeanor vandalism conviction. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), indicating he has been unable to identify any arguable issues for reversal or modification on appeal. Affirmed. BACKGROUND Chelino G. lived on the ground floor of an apartment complex in El Cajon, a city within San Diego County. His bedroom had a window facing the complex parking lot. On December 26, 2018, he was alone watching television in his apartment. As he looked out the window, he saw defendant standing in the parking lot saying something about a little girl. Thinking defendant needed help, he went outside. As he approached, Chelino saw defendant was holding a metal bar. Defendant, who was saying something about his wife and a little girl, swung the bar at Chelino, striking him. Chelino in vain tried to explain to defendant that nobody was inside his apartment. Chelino fell to his knees, as defendant continued to strike him with the bar, hitting him on the left wrist, right forearm, and left side of the chest. At some point, Chelino was struck in 2 The information also alleged two prison priors (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), which were subsequently dismissed on the People’s motion. 2 the mouth by defendant’s arm, knocking out some of his teeth. Following the attack, defendant used the bar to break Chelino’s apartment window, still shouting as if a girl was inside. As noted, appellate counsel has filed a brief based on Wende and Anders. Counsel has summarized the facts and proceedings and includes citations to the record. He urges there are no contentions which, if found meritorious, would result in reversal or modification of the judgment. Counsel represents he has informed defendant of his right to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf and has provided defendant with a copy of the record on appeal. This court has also informed defendant of his right to file a supplemental brief. Defendant did not file such a brief. DISCUSSION Counsel has provided the following issues for consideration under Anders: 1) Whether the trial court erred in denying the defense’s request to instruct the jury on imperfect self-defense/defense of another; and 2) Whether the trial court erred in excluding evidence of defendant’s mental illness during the guilt phase of the trial. We have reviewed the entire record, as required by Wende, and considered the Anders issues raised by defendant. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal or modification on appeal. Competent counsel has represented defendant on appeal.
3 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.
BENKE, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
IRION, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12