People v. Galloway CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D077347 · 2021-04-30 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCN395519
Trial judge: Blaine K. Bowman
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, 2026-10-13T05:09Z · confidence high

The trial court accepted Galloway's guilty plea to robbery and sentenced him to a 10-year prison term after denying his request to withdraw the plea based on substitute counsel's assessment. 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
Affirmance of the judgment following a 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/Anders review, examining the entire record for any arguable issues. It concluded that no such issues existed, thereby affirming the lower court's judgment. This is the standard procedure for appeals where counsel identifies no meritorious issues.

Authorities

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 counsel finds no issues.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the federal constitutional framework for appointed counsel's withdrawal and the court's independent review of the record.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for handling appeals where counsel identifies no meritorious issues. It accurately states that the court has reviewed the entire record and found no arguable errors.

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 Galloway's guilty plea to robbery with an on-bail allegation, a strike prior, and three prison priors, appointed substitute counsel to evaluate his request to withdraw the plea (counsel found no basis and filed no motion), reappointed trial counsel, sentenced him to 10 years across three cases, and denied his request for a certificate of probable cause. On appeal, counsel filed a Wende brief, Galloway filed nothing, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Trial court's handling of Galloway's request to withdraw his guilty plea (appointing substitute counsel, who found no basis for a motion, then reappointing trial counsel) and the resulting judgment, reviewed under Wende/Anders independent review “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 only issue counsel flagged was whether the plea's validity and the plea-withdrawal proceedings could be challenged on appeal. Because the trial court denied a certificate of probable cause under section 1237.5 and both this court and the Supreme Court declined to order one, challenges to the plea's validity and to the plea-withdrawal process are not cognizable, so the result is correct. The opinion, however, does not explain this or cite the controlling certificate-of-probable-cause authority, and it does not state whether the three section 667.5(b) one-year prison priors were actually imposed at a sentencing that appears to postdate Senate Bill 136, which is a sentencing issue reachable without a certificate; the record as described leaves that unresolved.

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 must so advise the court and identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
missed: People v. Johnson (2009) 47 Cal.4th 668 — A defendant who pleaded guilty must obtain a certificate of probable cause under section 1237.5 to appeal rulings connected to a motion to withdraw the plea, because such claims go to the validity of the plea.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court properly conducted the Wende/Anders review, recited the procedural history, and reached a defensible result: without a certificate of probable cause the plea-validity and plea-withdrawal issues counsel identified are not cognizable. The opinion does not articulate why those issues fail or cite the certificate-of-probable-cause authority, and it says nothing about whether the admitted section 667.5(b) prison priors were imposed, a post-Senate Bill 136 sentencing question that would be reviewable without a certificate.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 4/30/21 P. v. Galloway 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, D077347

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN395519)

RONALD GALLOWAY,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Blaine K. Bowman, Judge. Affirmed. Jay K. Temple, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Ronald Galloway pleaded guilty to robbery (Pen. Code,1 § 211) and admitted he was on bail at the time of the offense. Galloway also admitted a strike prior (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)) and three prison priors (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. Several months later, Galloway’s counsel advised the court that Galloway wished to withdraw his guilty plea due to ineffective assistance of counsel. The court appointed substitute counsel to review the request to withdraw the guilty plea. Substitute counsel later advised the court that counsel found no basis to withdraw the guilty plea and that a motion to withdraw would not be filed. The court then relieved substitute counsel and reappointed previous trial counsel. Galloway was sentenced in the current case and two other cases to a 10-year prison term. Galloway filed a timely notice of appeal, but his request for a certificate of probable cause (§ 1237.5) was denied. Thereafter this court denied a request to order a certificate of probable cause. After review by the Supreme Court, Galloway’s request was again denied. 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 Galloway the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. STATEMENT OF FACTS Galloway pleaded guilty to robbery. He did not challenge the factual basis for his plea in the trial court. 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 issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal.

2 Whether Galloway can appeal the validity of his guilty plea and the proceedings related to the evaluation of a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. 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 Galloway 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