People v. Jones CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. ECR11253
- Trial judge
- Polly H. Shamoon
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Judith D. McConnell, Cynthia Aaron
Analysis
The trial court entered a judgment reducing Jones's conviction to voluntary manslaughter based on a stipulation following a federal habeas corpus order. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after conducting a Wende review and finding no arguable issues for reversal.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Affirmance of the judgment entered on the stipulation reducing the offense to voluntary manslaughter.“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 Wende/Anders standard of review, which requires an independent examination of the record to determine if any arguable issues exist. The court found no such issues, leading to an affirmance. This is the standard procedure for pro per appeals where appointed counsel finds no merit. |
Rejection of Jones's supplemental brief argument that the stipulation to voluntary manslaughter violated due process because he was not charged with or tried on that offense.“On the record before us, the claims Jones makes in his supplemental brief do not raise any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.” | de novo | not reached | unsure The court reviewed the specific due process claim raised in the supplemental brief and determined it did not constitute an arguable issue for reversal. The court did not provide detailed legal analysis for this specific rejection, relying on the overall Wende review conclusion. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Establishes the requirement for appellate counsel to file a brief identifying arguable issues and for the court to conduct an independent review of the record in pro per criminal appeals.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to file a brief identifying arguable issues and the court to independently review the record to ensure no arguable issues are overlooked.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it follows the established Wende/Anders protocol for pro per appeals. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' opinion because it dismisses the appellant's specific due process argument regarding the stipulation without providing any legal analysis or citing authority to support the conclusion that the claim is not arguable.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionFollowing a federal habeas grant for ineffective assistance of counsel, the superior court entered judgment on the parties' stipulation reducing Jones's 1995 second degree murder conviction to voluntary manslaughter with credit for time served and no parole. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief, Jones filed a supplemental brief claiming a due process violation, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Entry of judgment on the stipulated reduction of the murder conviction to voluntary manslaughter with credit for time served (counsel's Anders issue: whether the court erred in sentencing Jones to manslaughter despite his mental illness, low intellect, and poverty).“Did the trial court err by sentencing Jones to manslaughter despite Jones’s history of mental illness and background of low intellect and poverty?” | unclear | correct | agree with court The reduction and sentence were the product of a stipulation that implemented the federal court's conditional habeas order, and the result (time served, release with no parole) could not have been more favorable to Jones; mitigating background factors do not supply an arguable basis to reverse a judgment the defendant agreed to. |
Rejection of Jones's supplemental-brief claim that entering a voluntary manslaughter conviction by stipulation, without a charge or jury trial on that offense, denied him due process.“On the record before us, the claims Jones makes in his supplemental brief do not raise any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.” | unclear | correct | agree with court Voluntary manslaughter is a lesser included offense of the charged murder, so the accusatory pleading put it at issue; the federal court itself ordered the reduction absent retrial, and Jones stipulated to it, which forfeits any jury-trial complaint. The court's conclusion is right, though it gave no reasoning and cited no authority for it. |
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.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal without merit must file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal to assist the court's review.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court applied the correct Wende/Anders framework, considered the one potential issue counsel flagged, and addressed the defendant's supplemental brief before affirming, which is the required procedure. It is thin, however: it rejects the due process claim in a single sentence without explaining that manslaughter is a lesser included offense of murder or that the defendant stipulated to the reduction, and it declines to engage counsel's arguments about the propriety of Wende review in this posture.
Opinion
Filed 8/26/21 P. v. Jones 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, D078766
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. ECR11253)
CHRISTOPHER JONES,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Polly H. Shamoon, Judge. Affirmed. Christopher Jones, in pro. per.; and Barbara A. Smith, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 1995, a jury convicted Christopher Jones of second degree murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187, subd. (a)) and found he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)).
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. Jones filed a petition for habeas corpus in the United States District Court. The court granted the petition on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. The court ordered Jones discharged unless retried in a timely manner. If not retried, the court ordered his conviction be reduced to manslaughter. Thereafter, the parties stipulated to a reduction of the offense to voluntary manslaughter with credit for time served. Jones was released and not required to serve any time on parole. Jones filed a timely notice of appeal from the judgment entered on the stipulation. 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.2 We offered Jones the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal. He has responded by filing a supplemental brief, which we will discuss later in this opinion.
DISCUSSION3 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 of the record, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified the following possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Did the trial 2 Counsel devotes the vast bulk of her brief to arguments that we should conduct a Wende review on this appeal. Since we are conducting a Wende review, we decline to discuss the various arguments for and against such review.
3 The facts of the underlying offense are not relevant to any potential issues on this appeal. Accordingly, we will omit the traditional statement of facts. 2 court err by sentencing Jones to manslaughter despite Jones’s history of mental illness and background of low intellect and poverty? In his supplemental brief, Jones argues his sentence to a term for voluntary manslaughter by stipulation as a lesser offense of murder denied him due process. He argues he was not charged with manslaughter and did not have a jury trial on that offense. On the record before us, the claims Jones makes in his supplemental brief do not raise any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. 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 Jones on this appeal. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
AARON, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12