People v. Salzman CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD279564
- Trial judge
- Theodore M. Weathers
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), O'Rourke, Patricia Guerrero
Analysis
The trial court denied Salzman's motion to dismiss for denial of a speedy trial under Penal Code section 1382, citing pandemic-related emergency orders. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after a Wende review found no arguable issues for reversal.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of motion to dismiss for denial of a speedy trial (Pen. Code, § 1382)“The court denied the motion to dismiss under Penal Code section 1382.” | unclear | not reached | unsure The appellate court did not explicitly state a standard of review or provide a detailed analysis of the trial court's ruling. Instead, it relied on the Wende/Anders procedure, stating it reviewed the entire record and found 'no arguable issues for reversal.' Because the court did not articulate the legal basis for affirming the denial, the specific application of the law is not visible in the opinion. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to identify arguable issues or file a brief explaining why none exist, and requires the court to independently review the record.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to withdraw from representation on appeal when no arguable issues exist, requiring a brief identifying the record and a court review.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it follows the established Wende/Anders protocol for cases where counsel identifies no arguable issues. However, it provides no substantive legal analysis regarding the speedy trial claim, leaving the reader without insight into why the trial court's denial was correct.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court denied Salzman's Penal Code section 1382 motion to dismiss after finding good cause for pandemic-related continuances, then accepted his guilty plea to DUI causing injury with a great bodily injury allegation and a strike prior, and sentenced him to four years with immediate release on accumulated credits. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief identifying the section 1382 ruling as a possible issue; the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of motion to dismiss for violation of the statutory speedy trial right under Penal Code section 1382, based on good cause for continuances arising from COVID-19 court closures and the Chief Justice's emergency orders“The court held a hearing and considered the various emergency orders that had been issued by the Chief Justice because of issues arising from the pandemic. The court denied the motion to dismiss under Penal Code section 1382.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The opinion does not articulate a standard of review or analyze the merits; it conducts Wende review and reports finding no arguable issue. The facts recited—continuances expressly grounded in pandemic court closures and the Chief Justice's emergency orders, with a hearing on the motion—are consistent with a good cause finding under section 1382, and courts have broad discretion on such findings. Nothing in the opinion suggests the trial court erred, but the summary nature of the record precludes certainty. |
Entry of judgment on guilty plea and sentence of midterm two years doubled for the strike prior, with immediate release on custody credits“The court sentenced Salzman to the midterm of two years, doubled because of the strike prior.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The sentence as described (midterm doubled under the Three Strikes law) is lawful on its face and the court ordered release based on accumulated credits. Independent Wende review found no error, and the opinion discloses nothing suggesting a sentencing or plea defect. |
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 error.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal lacks merit should file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, and the court must then conduct its own examination of the record.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the Wende/Anders procedure correctly: it notes counsel's brief, the possible issue identified, the defendant's opportunity to file a supplemental brief, and the court's independent record review. It is defensible but necessarily thin, offering no analysis of why the pandemic continuances satisfied section 1382's good cause requirement.
Opinion
Filed 2/3/22 P. v. Salzman 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, D078914
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD279564)
MARK SALZMAN,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Theodore M. Weathers, Judge. Affirmed. Jill Kent, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2019, Mark Salzman was charged with a number of offenses arising from alleged drunk driving causing injury. In March 2019, a preliminary hearing was held and Salzman was bound over for trial. Thereafter, a number of continuances were granted, over Salzman’s objections, based on court closures due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In May 2020, the court found good cause to continue the trial date because of the pandemic. The court granted another continuance in July 2020. In August 2020, Salzman brought a motion to dismiss for denial of a speedy trial. The court held a hearing and considered the various emergency orders that had been issued by the Chief Justice because of issues arising from the pandemic. The court denied the motion to dismiss under Penal Code section 1382. In January 2021, Salzman pleaded guilty to one count of driving under the influence of alcohol causing injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a)) and admitted personally inflicting great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 1192.7, subd. (c)(8)). Salzman also admitted a strike prior (Pen. Code, § 667, subds. (b)-(i)). The court sentenced Salzman to the midterm of two years, doubled because of the strike prior. Based upon the accumulated custody credits, the court ordered Salzman’s immediate release from custody and ordered him to report to parole. Salzman filed a timely notice of appeal and obtained a certificate of probable cause. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating that 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 Salzman the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.1 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 1 The facts of the underlying offense are not relevant to the resolution of this appeal. 2 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: Whether the trial court erroneously denied Salzman’s motion to dismiss the case under Penal Code section 1382. 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 Salzman on this appeal. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
O'ROURKE, J.
GUERRERO, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12