People v. Jacome CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D079333 · 2021-11-12 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD290183
Trial judge: Laura W. Halgren
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), O'Rourke, Cynthia Aaron

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:58Z · confidence high

The trial court accepted a guilty plea to assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury and sentenced the defendant to two years in prison, while denying a request for a certificate of probable cause. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record found no arguable issues for reversal.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of certificate of probable cause (CPC) “Jacome’s request for a certificate of probable cause was denied.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The opinion does not explicitly state the standard of review for the denial of the CPC, nor does it analyze the merits of that specific ruling. It simply notes the denial as part of the procedural history leading to the appeal. The court proceeds to review the record under Wende/Anders without addressing whether the denial was correct or erroneous.
Affirmance of judgment following guilty plea “We have independently reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.”	de novo	correct	agree with court The court applied the standard Wende/Anders review, which requires an independent examination of the record to identify any arguable issues. The court found none, specifically rejecting the appellant's claims as not properly before the court on this record (lacking a CPC) and noting they were better suited for habeas corpus. This is the standard procedure for such appeals.

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 if counsel finds none.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires counsel to file a brief identifying arguable issues and the court to independently review the record if counsel finds none, ensuring due process.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly identifies the applicable Wende/Anders framework for an appeal following a guilty plea without a certificate of probable cause. It properly dismisses the appellant's substantive claims as not properly before the court on this record and directs the appropriate remedy (habeas corpus).

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:30Z · confidence medium

The trial court accepted Jacome's guilty plea to assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury under a plea bargain, sentenced him to the stipulated low term of two years, and denied his request for a certificate of probable cause. On appeal, counsel filed a Wende brief, Jacome filed a supplemental brief raising complaints about discovery, counsel, the prosecutor, and parole conditions, and the Court of Appeal held none were cognizable without a certificate of probable cause, independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Acceptance of guilty plea and imposition of the stipulated two-year low term sentence (judgment of conviction) “We have independently 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 conducted the independent record review required by Wende and Anders after appointed counsel found no arguable issues. The only Anders issue identified was whether Jacome was advised of and waived his rights before pleading; the court found nothing arguable. Nothing in the opinion suggests any defect in the plea or sentence, which matched the bargain.
Cognizability of Jacome's supplemental-brief claims (discovery, ineffective assistance in plea bargaining, prosecutorial misconduct, refusal to modify parole conditions) absent a certificate of probable cause “None of Jacome’s issues are properly before us on this record. The remedy for the various complaints, if any, is by way of a petition for habeas corpus filed in the Superior Court.”	de novo	not reached	agree with court Under Penal Code section 1237.5 and rule 8.304(b), an appeal after a guilty plea cannot challenge the validity of the plea without a certificate of probable cause. Claims about discovery, counsel's performance in plea bargaining, and prosecutorial misconduct in plea bargaining all go to the plea's validity and were correctly held not cognizable; they also depend on facts outside the record, making habeas the proper vehicle. The parole-condition complaint is less clearly plea-related, but the opinion gives no indication the record contains any such ruling, so declining to reach it is defensible. The court did not cite section 1237.5 or People v. Panizzon, but its conclusion is consistent with that law.

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 issues.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal frivolous should file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, to assist the court's independent review.
missed: People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68 — A defendant who pleads guilty must obtain a certificate of probable cause under Penal Code section 1237.5 to raise on appeal any issue going to the validity of the plea, including challenges to a negotiated sentence.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court properly applied Wende and Anders and correctly recognized that Jacome's supplemental complaints about plea bargaining, counsel, and discovery are not cognizable on appeal without a certificate of probable cause and rest on matters outside the record. The opinion is thin, however, in that it does not cite Penal Code section 1237.5 or Panizzon for the certificate requirement and does not separately address whether the parole-condition complaint was plea-related or supported by any ruling in the record.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

Filed 11/12/21 P. v. Jacome 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, D079333

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD290183)

ALEXANDER JACOME,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Laura W. Halgren, Judge. Affirmed. Alexander Jacome, in pro. per.; and Richard Schwartzberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Alexander Jacome entered into a plea bargain. Under the agreement, Jacome pleaded guilty to assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code,1 § 245, subd. (a)(4)). The remaining charge was dismissed, 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. and the parties stipulated to the low term of two years in prison. Jacome was sentenced to two years in prison in accordance with the plea agreement. Jacome’s request for a certificate of probable cause was denied. Jacome 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 Jacome the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal. Jacome has responded by filing a supplemental brief, which we will discuss below. STATEMENT OF FACTS The conviction arises from a guilty plea without an evidentiary hearing. In his change of plea, Jacome admitted that he “unlawfully committed an assault that would likely produce great bodily injury.” 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 issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal. Whether the record indicates that Jacome was advised of the consequences of pleading guilty and his constitutional rights, and waived those rights, before pleading guilty. In his supplemental brief, Jacome complains about a number of “issues.” His complaints are largely about matters not before us on this record. This is an appeal following a guilty plea which on appeal is not supported by a certificate of probable cause.

2 Jacome alleges he did not get copies of police reports and other discovery material. He complains about the way his counsel handled plea bargaining and asserts counsel was ineffective. He alleges the prosecutor engaged in misconduct in plea bargaining and the trial judge erred in refusing to order modification of his parole conditions. None of Jacome’s issues are properly before us on this record. The remedy for the various complaints, if any, is by way of a petition for habeas corpus filed in the Superior Court. We have independently 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 Jacome on this appeal. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

O'ROURKE, J.

AARON, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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