People v. Martinez CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D079004 · 2022-01-27 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from an order
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD272693
Trial judge: Joseph P. Brannigan
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Cynthia Aaron, William S. Dato

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:55Z · confidence low

The trial court denied Martinez's petition to dismiss his conviction under Penal Code section 1203.42, finding him ineligible for relief. The Court of Appeal affirmed the order, finding no arguable issues for reversal after a Wende review of the record.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of petition to dismiss conviction under Penal Code section 1203.42 “The trial court found Mauricio Martinez ineligible for relief under the statute and denied the motion.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The appellate court did not apply a specific standard of review to the trial court's ruling because it determined, following a Wende review, that the record did not present any arguable issues for reversal. Consequently, the court affirmed the order without analyzing the merits of the eligibility determination.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appellate counsel to review the record for error when no arguable issues are identified, and the court to conduct an independent review.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires counsel to file a brief identifying any arguable issues and the court to review the record independently when counsel finds no merit.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for reviewing appeals where counsel identifies no arguable issues. However, it provides no substantive legal analysis of the trial court's application of section 1203.42, relying entirely on the absence of arguable issues in the record.

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 San Diego Superior Court denied Mauricio Martinez's 2021 petition under Penal Code section 1203.42 to dismiss his 2017 conviction for assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)), finding him ineligible after probation had been revoked and a two-year prison term imposed in 2019. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief, Martinez 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
Denial of petition for dismissal under Penal Code section 1203.42 on the ground that Martinez was ineligible for relief “The trial court found Mauricio Martinez ineligible for relief under the statute and denied the motion.”	unclear	correct	agree with court Section 1203.42 provides relief only to defendants sentenced to state prison for offenses that, had they been committed after the 2011 Realignment Act, would have been punishable under section 1170(h). Martinez's offense was committed in or before 2017, well after realignment, and section 245(a)(4) remains a state-prison offense, so on the face of the record he could not qualify. Although the opinion does not articulate the statutory basis for ineligibility, the dates and offense recited make the ineligibility finding sound, and the court's Wende review reasonably found no arguable issue. Counsel's flagged issue about whether the trial court analyzed the petition under section 1203.4 instead of 1203.42 would not aid Martinez, since he also would not qualify under 1203.4 after a probation revocation and prison sentence.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel finds no arguable issues, the reviewing court must independently review the entire record for arguable issues before affirming.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous should 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 followed the Wende/Anders procedure, invited a supplemental brief, reviewed the record, and affirmed a ruling that is plainly correct on the recited facts, since a post-realignment conviction for a state-prison offense cannot qualify for section 1203.42 relief. The opinion is thin: it never states why Martinez was ineligible and does not address whether Wende review is even required in an appeal from a postjudgment order (see People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496), though conducting the review anyway was harmless to the defendant.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 1/27/22 P. v. Martinez 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, D079004

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD272693)

MAURICIO MARTINEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Joseph P. Brannigan, Judge. Affirmed. Jay Temple, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. This is an appeal from the denial of a motion to dismiss under Penal Code1 section 1203.42. The trial court found Mauricio Martinez ineligible for relief under the statute and denied the motion. We will find the record on 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. appeal does not present any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) In 2017, Martinez pleaded guilty to assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)). The court sentenced Martinez to three years on probation. In 2019, the court revoked probation and sentenced Martinez to a two- year term in prison. In 2021, Martinez filed a petition for dismissal of his conviction under section 1203.42. Following a hearing with Martinez present, the court found Martinez was not eligible for relief and denied the petition. Martinez filed a notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, indicating counsel he 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 Martinez the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. 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. Whether the trial court analyzed the petition under section 1203. 4 rather than section 1203.42. 2. Whether the trial court erred in denying Martinez’s petition for dismissal under section 1203.4.

2 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 Martinez on this appeal. DISPOSITION The order denying Martinez’s petition to dismiss under section 1203.42 is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

AARON, J.

DATO, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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