People v. Brizuela CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D078376 · 2021-07-19 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCN317396
Trial judge: Richard R. Monroy
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Judith L. Haller, William S. Dato

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T05:05Z · confidence low

The trial court declined to transfer the defendant to juvenile court and denied the motion to strike firearm enhancements, reinstating the original judgment. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after finding no arguable issues for reversal during its independent review of the record.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Refusal to transfer case to juvenile court “The trial court refused to transfer appellant’s case to juvenile court because: (1) appellant was 17 years and seven months old when the crimes were committed; (2) repeated attempts by the juvenile court system to reform him had failed; (3) appellant committed the crimes while completing a period of probation; (4) appellant was incapable of being rehabilitated; (5) his criminal delinquent record was extensive; and (6) the crimes were grave.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The appellate court did not apply a specific standard of review or analyze the merits of the trial court's decision; it simply stated that it had reviewed the record and found no arguable issues for reversal.
Denial of motion to strike firearm enhancement “The trial court refused to dismiss the firearm enhancements for the same reasons.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The appellate court did not apply a specific standard of review or analyze the merits of the trial court's decision; it simply stated that it had reviewed the record and found no arguable issues for reversal.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appellate counsel to identify arguable issues and the court to independently review the record for error when counsel files a Wende brief.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires independent review of the record by the appellate court when appointed counsel files a brief stating there are no arguable issues.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound in that it follows the Wende/Anders protocol by stating that the court reviewed the entire record and found no arguable issues. However, it provides no substantive legal analysis or application of standards of review to the specific rulings on transfer and enhancements, leaving the reasoning opaque.

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

On remand after a conditional reversal, the trial court held a Welfare and Institutions Code section 707 transfer hearing, declined to send Kevin Brizuela's double-murder case to juvenile court, declined to strike the section 12022.53 firearm enhancements, and reinstated the original sentence of 100 years to life. On appeal, counsel filed a Wende brief, Brizuela filed nothing, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of transfer to juvenile court after Welfare and Institutions Code section 707 fitness/transfer hearing “The trial court refused to transfer appellant’s case to juvenile court because: (1) appellant was 17 years and seven months old when the crimes were committed; (2) repeated attempts by the juvenile court system to reform him had failed”	unclear	correct	agree with court The opinion recites that the trial court considered the statutory factors relevant to a transfer decision (age, prior delinquent history, failure of prior rehabilitation attempts, probation status, gravity of the offenses, and amenability to rehabilitation), and the record summarized included evidence on both sides, including childhood abuse. A decision on those factors is reviewed deferentially, and nothing in the opinion suggests the court used the wrong criteria or failed to weigh mitigating evidence. In a Wende posture with no appellant brief, the court's conclusion that no arguable issue exists is supported by what the opinion describes, though the opinion does not state the standard of review or discuss the burden of proof at the hearing.
Denial of motion to strike the Penal Code section 12022.53 firearm enhancements “Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to strike the firearm enhancement.”	abuse of discretion	correct	agree with court The trial court exercised the discretion conferred on remand and declined to strike the enhancements for the same reasons it declined transfer: the defendant's extensive record, failed rehabilitation, commission of the crimes while on probation, and the gravity of two murders and two attempted murders. Those are legitimate sentencing considerations, and the opinion indicates the court understood it had discretion and gave reasons, so an abuse-of-discretion challenge would not be arguable on this record.

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 frivolous should file a brief identifying anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal so the court can conduct its own review.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court followed the Wende/Anders procedure, identified the two possible issues counsel flagged, and stated it reviewed the entire record and found no arguable issue, which is all that procedure requires. The opinion is brief and does not articulate the standard of review for the transfer decision or cite the governing transfer criteria, but the result is defensible given the trial court's stated reasons.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 7/19/21 P. v. Brizuela 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, D078376

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN317396)

KEVIN BRIZUELA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Richard R. Monroy, Judge. Affirmed. John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2016, a jury convicted Kevin Brizuela of two counts of first degree murder (Pen. Code,1 §§ 187, subd. (a), 190.2, subd. (a)(3)) and two counts of attempted premeditated murder (§§ 664, 187, subd. (a), 189). The jury also 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. found true that Brizuela had discharged a firearm causing death or bodily injury (§ 12022.53, subds. (d) & (e)(1)). Brizuela was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 100 years to life in prison. Brizuela appealed and this court issued an unpublished opinion in October 2018. (People v. Brizuela (Oct. 11, 2018, D071364) [nonpub. opn.].) In that opinion, we conditionally reversed the judgement and remanded the case to the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine if the case should be remanded to the juvenile court since Brizuela was 17 years old at the time of the offenses. We also directed the trial court to exercise its discretion to consider whether to strike the firearm enhancement. On remand, the court held a fitness hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 707). The trial court declined to remand the case to the juvenile court and denied the motion to strike the firearm enhancement. The court reinstated the original judgment and sentence. Brizuela 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 Brizuela the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. STATEMENT OF FACTS The facts of the offenses are set forth in our prior opinion and do not need to be repeated here. Rather we will set forth the summary of material 2 presented to the trial court as contained in the appellant’s brief for convenience and for background purposes. A. Statement of the Case On October 11, 2018, this Court conditionally reversed the judgment and remanded the case to the Superior Court with directions. The trial court was directed to hold a transfer hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 707 to determine whether: (1) it would have transferred the case to a court of criminal jurisdiction; and (2) the firearm enhancements should be stricken. The parties filed briefs regarding the transfer issue. The trial court conducted the transfer hearing on November 16, 2020. The trial court declined to transfer the case to juvenile court. It also refused to strike the firearm enhancements. The trial court imposed the same sentence previously imposed. Brizuela filed a timely notice of appeal on December 15, 2020. B. The Facts from the Transfer Hearing Exhibits A through F were attached to the prosecution post-conviction transfer hearing brief. The exhibits are in the four volumes of the augment clerk’s transcript. The exhibits included incident reports from appellant’s custody in the San Diego County jail, evidence of appellant’s gang connections, appellant’s post-conviction, pending transfer criminal and gang conduct, county and welfare services referral information. The exhibits showed multiple instances of appellant’s misconduct in custody and gang connections. The exhibits also showed appellant suffered abuse as a child. The defense evidence showed appellant was beaten by his stepfather with a belt and removed from the care of his mother because of the abuse. Appellant also suffered serious injuries when he fell from a second story window when 3 he was six years old. Appellant was initiated into the Vista Homeboys gang when he was in seventh grade. The trial court refused to transfer appellant’s case to juvenile court because: (1) appellant was 17 years and seven months old when the crimes were committed; (2) repeated attempts by the juvenile court system to reform him had failed; (3) appellant committed the crimes while completing a period of probation; (4) appellant was incapable of being rehabilitated; (5) his criminal delinquent record was extensive; and (6) the crimes were grave. The trial court refused to dismiss the firearm enhancements for the same reasons. 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 incompliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) counsel has identified the following possible issues which were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal. 1. Whether the trial court erred in refusing to order appellant’s case returned to the juvenile court. 2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to strike the firearm enhancement. We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal in appeal. Competent counsel has represented Brizuela on this appeal.

4 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

HALLER, J.

DATO, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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