People v. Costa CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D077975 · 2021-06-25 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCE384975
Trial judge: Robert O. Amador
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Cynthia Aaron, Patricia D. Benke

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T05:06Z · confidence low

The trial court affirmed a plea agreement resulting in a 50-year-to-life sentence and imposed a $10,000 restitution fine and various fees and assessments, rejecting defense counsel's request to waive the fine based on inability to pay. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, finding no arguable issues for reversal.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Imposition of a $10,000 restitution fine and various fees and assessments. “The court denied Costa’s request, finding he could work in prison.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The appellate court conducted an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende and Anders v. California but did not explicitly analyze the merits of the restitution fine or fee imposition. It concluded that it had 'not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal,' thereby affirming the trial court's rulings without addressing the specific constitutional or discretionary arguments raised in the Wende brief.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to file a brief identifying arguable issues and the court to independently review the record for error when counsel finds no issues.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to withdraw from an appeal by filing a brief identifying potentially meritorious issues and allowing the court to review the record.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound in that it follows the required Wende/Anders protocol for cases where appointed counsel identifies no arguable issues. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' opinion because it fails to provide any substantive legal analysis or reasoning for why the specific constitutional and discretionary challenges to the restitution fine and fees were not arguable, relying solely on the negative conclusion of the independent review.

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 Costa's guilty plea to second degree murder with a firearm-discharge enhancement and a prior strike, imposed the stipulated 50-years-to-life sentence, and over an inability-to-pay objection imposed a $10,000 restitution fine (finding he could work in prison) plus unobjected-to fees and assessments. On appeal, counsel filed a Wende brief, Costa 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
Imposition of the $10,000 restitution fine over defendant's inability-to-pay objection, based on a finding that he could work in prison “The court denied Costa’s request, finding he could work in prison.”	unclear	correct	agree with court Under Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (d), a court may consider a defendant's ability to pay, including future earning capacity such as prison wages, when setting a fine above the minimum; the trial court made an express finding on this point after hearing the objection. A 50-years-to-life sentence gives ample time to earn prison wages, so an abuse of discretion is unlikely, and the opinion's conclusion that no arguable issue exists is consistent with the recited record.
Imposition of fees and assessments without an express ability-to-pay determination, where trial counsel did not object “Trial counsel requested the court to not impose a restitution fine given the lengthy sentence and Costa’s inability to pay but did not object to the imposition of fees and assessments.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The failure to object to the fees and assessments ordinarily forfeits an ability-to-pay challenge on appeal, and in any event the court had already found an ability to pay with respect to the far larger restitution fine, which would defeat any Dueñas-type claim as to much smaller amounts. The opinion does not discuss forfeiture or Dueñas, but a Wende opinion need not, and the result is defensible.
Overall judgment following guilty plea and stipulated sentence, reviewed under Wende/Anders for arguable issues “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 followed the Wende/Anders procedure: counsel identified potential issues, the defendant was invited to file his own brief and did not, and the court independently reviewed the record. Nothing in the recited record (a negotiated plea with a stipulated sentence) suggests an arguable issue, so the affirmance is supported.

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 error before affirming.
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.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court correctly followed the Wende/Anders procedure and the recited record, including the trial court's express finding that Costa could earn prison wages, supports the conclusion that no arguable issue exists. The opinion does not discuss forfeiture of the unobjected-to fees or the Dueñas line of cases flagged by counsel's issues, but a Wende opinion is not required to analyze those points and the result is defensible.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

Filed 6/25/21 P. v. Costa 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, D077975

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCE384975)

CHRISTOPHER COSTA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Robert O. Amador, Judge. Affirmed. Cynthia Grimm, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Christopher Costa entered into a plea agreement with a stipulated sentence. Costa pleaded guilty to one count of second degree murder (Pen.

Code,1 § 187, subd. (a)) and admitted he personally discharged a firearm causing death or great bodily injury (§ 12022.53, subds. (b)-(d)) and admitted 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. a prior robbery conviction. The parties stipulated Costa would receive a sentence of 50 years to life in prison. The remaining charges were dismissed. Costa was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement. The trial court imposed a $10,000 restitution fine as well as various fees and assessments. Trial counsel requested the court to not impose a restitution fine given the lengthy sentence and Costa’s inability to pay but did not object to the imposition of fees and assessments. The court denied Costa’s request, finding he could work in prison. Costa 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 Costa the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. STATEMENT OF FACTS In his change of plea form, Costa stated that he “personally and intentionally discharged a firearm, that caused the death of Ian Turner with malice aforethought without justification while having a strike prior on [his] record.” 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 abuse its discretion and violate Equal Protection, Due Process, and the ban on excessive fines contained in the United States and 2 California Constitutions by imposing the $10,000 restitution fine and the fees and assessments because Costa does not have the ability to pay them? 2. Did the court abuse its discretion and violate Costa’s constitutional rights in finding he has the ability to pay the restitution fine? 3. Did the court violate Costa’s constitutional rights by imposing the fee and assessments without determining whether he had the ability to pay them? 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 Costa on this appeal. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

BENKE, Acting P. J.

AARON, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12