People v. Lopez CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D079521 · 2022-02-09 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from an order
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCE252974
Trial judge: Roderick W. Shelton
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Judith D. McConnell, O'Rourke

Analysis

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

The trial court denied the defendant's motion for a Franklin hearing and his motion to strike firearm enhancements under Senate Bill 620, finding him ineligible for youth offender parole due to Three Strikes sentencing and that SB 620 did not apply retroactively. The Court of Appeal affirmed the order after conducting a Wende review and finding no arguable issues for reversal.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of motion for a Franklin hearing “The court found that Lopez was not eligible for youth offender parole because he was sentenced under the Three Strikes law. Thus, the court found that a “Franklin hearing” to make a record for future parole consideration was not appropriate.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The appellate court did not independently analyze the legal merits of the trial court's ruling on the Franklin hearing. Instead, the court relied on the Wende/Anders procedure, stating it had reviewed the entire record and found no arguable issues for reversal. Because the opinion does not provide a substantive legal analysis of the trial court's reasoning regarding Three Strikes eligibility, the standard of review and the specific appellate view on the merits are not explicitly stated.
Denial of motion to strike firearm enhancements under SB 620 “The court also found Senate Bill No. 620 did not apply retroactively to Lopez’s sentence because his conviction was final years before Senate Bill No. 620 was enacted.”	unclear	not reached	unsure Similar to the Franklin hearing issue, the appellate court did not provide a substantive legal analysis of the retroactivity determination. The court affirmed the order based on its Wende review, concluding that no arguable issues for reversal were identified in the record. The opinion does not explicitly state the standard of review applied to the trial court's retroactivity determination.

Authorities

relied: People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261 — Establishes the procedure for making a record for potential consideration of youth offender parole.
relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appellate counsel to identify arguable issues or file a brief requesting the court to review the record for error when no issues are found.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appellate counsel to file a brief identifying arguable issues or explaining why none exist, and requires the court to review the record independently.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound in that it correctly applies the Wende/Anders framework for handling appeals where counsel finds no arguable issues. However, it is substantively thin because it provides no independent legal analysis of the trial court's rulings on Franklin hearing eligibility or SB 620 retroactivity, relying solely on the assertion that no errors were found in the record review.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition unusual disposition

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

The trial court denied Armando Lopez's 2021 postjudgment motions for a Franklin hearing (finding him ineligible for youth offender parole because he was sentenced under the Three Strikes law) and to strike his firearm enhancements under Senate Bill No. 620 (finding the law not retroactive because his 2006 judgment was long final). On appeal, counsel filed a Wende brief, Lopez filed nothing, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed the order.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of motion for a Franklin hearing on the ground that a defendant sentenced under the Three Strikes law is ineligible for youth offender parole “The court found that Lopez was not eligible for youth offender parole because he was sentenced under the Three Strikes law.”	unclear	correct	agree with court Penal Code section 3051, subdivision (h) expressly excludes from youth offender parole those sentenced under the Three Strikes law, so a Franklin proceeding to preserve evidence for a parole hearing that will never occur serves no purpose; the opinion's conclusion is consistent with Franklin and the statute, though the court did not cite the subdivision or explain its reasoning beyond Wende review.
Denial of motion to strike firearm enhancements under Senate Bill No. 620 because the judgment was final before the law's effective date “The court also found Senate Bill No. 620 did not apply retroactively to Lopez’s sentence because his conviction was final years before Senate Bill No. 620 was enacted.”	unclear	correct	agree with court Senate Bill No. 620's discretionary authority applies retroactively only to judgments not yet final under the Estrada rule; Lopez's 2006 judgment was final years before the January 1, 2018 effective date, so the trial court had no authority to strike the enhancements. The result is correct, although several Courts of Appeal have treated such orders as nonappealable and dismissed rather than affirmed, a point the opinion does not address.
Appellate court's decision to conduct independent Wende/Anders review of the record in an appeal from a postjudgment order “We have reviewed the entire record for error as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.”	de novo	correct	agree with court Whether Wende review is constitutionally required in postjudgment appeals was unsettled at the time; the court presumed counsel raised the question but conducted full review anyway, which is a defensible, defendant-protective choice and did not affect the outcome. The court did not resolve or analyze the procedural question it flagged.

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 — Counsel filing a no-issue brief should identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal to assist the reviewing court.
relied: People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261 — A youth offender eligible for parole under Penal Code section 3051 is entitled to an opportunity to make a record of youth-related mitigating factors for a future parole hearing.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The result is correct: Three Strikes offenders are statutorily excluded from youth offender parole, and Senate Bill No. 620 does not reach judgments final before its effective date. But the opinion is bare-bones; it does not cite section 3051, subdivision (h) or the Estrada finality rule, does not address whether the order denying an unauthorized postjudgment motion was appealable, and does not resolve the Wende-in-postjudgment-appeals question it acknowledges counsel raised.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

Filed 2/9/22 P. v. Lopez 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, D079521

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCE252974)

ARMANDO LOPEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Roderick W. Shelton, Judge. Affirmed. David L. Polsky, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2006, a jury convicted Armando Lopez of one count of carjacking (Pen. Code,1 § 215, subd. (a)); being a felon in possession of a firearm (§ 12021, subd. (a)(1)); and two counts of assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)). The jury found true allegations that Lopez used a firearm 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. (§§ 12022.5, subd. (a), 12022.53, subd. (b)) and that Lopez personally discharged a firearm during the carjacking (§ 12022.53, subd. (c)). Lopez admitted a serious felony prior conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)), a prison prior (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), and a strike prior (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)). Lopez was sentenced as a second strike offender to a term of 39 years eight months in prison. In 2021, Lopez filed a motion to order a hearing under People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261 (Franklin hearing) to make a record for potential consideration of youth offender parole. Lopez also requested the court to strike the firearm enhancements under the new discretionary authority of Senate Bill No. 620. The court denied the motions by written order. The court found that Lopez was not eligible for youth offender parole because he was sentenced under the Three Strikes law. Thus, the court found that a “Franklin hearing” to make a record for future parole consideration was not appropriate. The court also found Senate Bill No. 620 did not apply retroactively to Lopez’s sentence because his conviction was final years before Senate Bill No. 620 was enacted. Lopez 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 Lopez the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.2 2 The facts of the underlying offenses are not relevant to this appeal. Therefore, we will omit a statement of facts. 2 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 possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Whether the trial court erred in denying the request for a Franklin hearing and in denying the motion to strike the firearm enhancements. In addition, counsel considered what procedures the appellate court should use in response to this appeal.3 We have reviewed the entire record for error as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Lopez on this appeal.

3 We presume counsel is referring to the question of whether Wende review is appropriate for appeals from postjudgment orders. 3 DISPOSITION The order denying Lopez’s motions for a Franklin hearing and to strike the firearm enhancements is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

O'ROURKE, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Franklin S217699 · 2016-05-26
People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12