People v. Riosescalera CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D078505 · 2021-07-06 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCE373822
Trial judges: John M. Thompson; Robert O. Amador
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Cynthia Aaron, Truc T. Do

Analysis

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

The trial court accepted a guilty plea for DUI causing injury, sentenced the defendant to prison with a stay of execution, and subsequently revoked probation and committed the defendant to serve the sentence. The appellate court 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
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 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 appointed counsel who cannot identify meritorious issues.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to file a brief identifying arguable issues or, if none exist, to request the court to review the record for error.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the federal constitutional requirement for independent appellate review when counsel files a no-merit brief.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it strictly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for handling no-merit appeals. It correctly identifies the procedural posture and the court's duty to review the record independently when counsel finds no arguable issues.

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 Riosescalera pleaded guilty to DUI causing injury with enhancements and received a stayed five-year-four-month prison term with probation, formally revoked probation in December 2020, vacated the stay, and committed her to the previously imposed term. On appeal, counsel filed a Wende brief, the defendant filed nothing, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Revocation of probation, vacatur of the stay of execution, and commitment to the previously imposed prison term of five years four months “The court formally revoked probation on December 21, 2020. The court vacated the stay of the prison sentence and committed Riosescalera for the previously ordered term.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The court conducted an independent Wende/Anders review of the record rather than applying a conventional standard of review to any contested ruling. The opinion recites almost no facts about the revocation, so there is nothing in it indicating error, but there is also little allowing independent verification. The result is consistent with the limited scope of an appeal from an order executing a previously imposed and unappealed sentence.
Wende/Anders independent review of counsel's identified potential issues (validity of plea, factual basis, custody credits, ineffective assistance) “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 Counsel listed four Anders issues; the plea-validity and factual-basis issues would ordinarily not be cognizable on an appeal from a later revocation order given that the defendant neither timely appealed the original judgment nor obtained a certificate of probable cause, which the opinion notes but does not analyze. The court nonetheless states it reviewed the entire record and found nothing arguable, which is the required Wende procedure. Without the record, the conclusion cannot be independently checked but nothing in the opinion suggests error.

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 frivolous must so advise the court and file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the standard Wende/Anders procedure, states the court reviewed the entire record, and reaches the expected affirmance. It does not explain why the identified plea-related issues are cognizable (or not) absent a timely appeal from the original judgment and a certificate of probable cause, and it provides minimal procedural detail about the revocation itself.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 7/6/21 P. v. Riosescalera 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, D078505

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCE373822)

JAZMIN RENE RIOSESCALERA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Robert O. Amador and John M. Thompson, Judges. Affirmed. Leslie Ann Rose, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In June 2019, Jasmin Riosescalera, pleaded guilty to driving under the influence of alcohol causing injury (Veh. Code,1 § 23153, subd. (a)) and admitted the enhancement for causing bodily injury or death to one or more 1 All further statutory references are to the Vehicle Code unless otherwise specified. victims (§ 23558) and personal infliction of great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 12022.7, subd. (a)). In November 2019, the court sentenced Riosescalera to a term of five years four months in prison. The court stayed the execution of the sentence and granted formal probation. Riosescalera did not appeal the sentence, the guilty plea or obtain a certificate of probable cause. The court revoked and reinstated probation in December 2019. The court formally revoked probation on December 21, 2020. The court vacated the stay of the prison sentence and committed Riosescalera for the previously ordered term. Riosescalera 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 Riosescalera the opportunity to file her own brief on appeal, but she has not responded. STATEMENT OF FACTS In her change of plea, Riosescalera stated that she “drove a vehicle under the influence causing great bodily injury to more than one person in the other vehicle.” 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. Was Riosescalera’s guilty plea constitutionally valid?

2 2. Was there sufficient factual basis for the plea? 3. Were Riosescalera’s credits calculated correctly? 4. Was Riosescalera’s attorney ineffective? 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 Riosescalera on this appeal. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

AARON, J.

DO, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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