People v. Alvarez CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D079132 · 2022-02-14 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD284127
Trial judge: David M. Gill
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Cynthia Aaron, Patricia Guerrero

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:54Z · confidence low

The trial court denied the defendant's motion to strike a prior serious felony conviction under People v. Superior Court (Romero) and sentenced him to four years in state prison. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, finding no arguable issues for reversal.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of motion to strike prior serious felony conviction under People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 “Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the defense motion to strike the true finding on the strike prior under Penal Code section 1385.”	abuse of discretion	not reached	agree with court The appellate court did not reach the merits of the Romero motion because it was conducting a Wende review and found no arguable issues for reversal on appeal.

Authorities

relied: People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 — Establishes the standard for a trial court's discretion to strike a prior serious felony conviction under Penal Code section 1385.
relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to review the record for error and file a brief identifying arguable issues, or explain why none exist.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires independent review of the record by the appellate court when appointed counsel files a Wende brief.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly identifies the Wende/Anders framework and states that the court reviewed the entire record. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' opinion because it fails to provide any specific reasoning for why the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Romero motion, which is the only issue identified by counsel.

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

A jury convicted Jesus Alvarez of selling methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)) and found true a prior drug conviction and a strike prior; the trial court denied his Romero motion to dismiss the strike and sentenced him to four years (the two-year low term doubled). On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief identifying the Romero denial as a possible issue, Alvarez 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 defendant's motion under Penal Code section 1385 and Romero to dismiss the strike prior conviction “Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the defense motion to strike the true finding on the strike prior under Penal Code section 1385.”	abuse of discretion	correct	unsure The opinion identifies the Romero denial only as a possible issue flagged by counsel under Anders and states that independent review disclosed no arguable issue; it recites no facts about the strike prior, the defendant's record, or the trial court's reasons. The low term doubled suggests the court exercised some leniency, but the opinion itself supplies no basis to independently confirm that the denial was within the court's discretion under Romero.
Judgment of conviction and sentence as a whole (Wende/Anders independent review of the entire record) “We have 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 followed the procedure required by Wende and Anders: counsel filed a no-issue brief with a possible issue identified, the defendant was invited to file his own brief and did not, and the court independently reviewed the record. The recited facts (undercover buy with prerecorded bills, bill recovered from defendant's pocket, criminalist confirmation of methamphetamine) amply support the conviction, and nothing in the opinion suggests an unaddressed error.

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 to determine whether any arguable issue exists.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal without merit should file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, to assist the court's review.
relied: People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 — A trial court has discretion under Penal Code section 1385 to strike a prior strike conviction allegation in furtherance of justice.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly applies the Wende/Anders procedure, notes the possible Romero issue identified by counsel, confirms the defendant was given the chance to file his own brief, and affirms after independent review. It is a standard no-issue affirmance and does not need to discuss the Romero standard in detail, though it offers no facts about the strike or the trial court's reasons.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 2/14/22 P. v. Alvarez 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, D079132

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD284127)

JESUS ALVAREZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, David M. Gill, Judge. Affirmed. Patrick Dudley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. A jury convicted Jesus Alvarez of sale of a controlled substance (Health and Saf. Code,1 § 11379, subd. (a)). In a bifurcated trial, the jury found true Alvarez suffered a prior conviction under section 11352, within the meaning 1 All further statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code unless otherwise specified. of Penal Code section 1203.07, subdivision (a)(11); the jury also found true an alleged strike prior conviction (Pen. Code, § 667, subds. (b)-(i)). Alvarez brought a motion to dismiss the strike prior under People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497. The court denied the motion and sentenced Alvarez to a determinate term of four years (the low term of two years, doubled because of the strike prior). Alvarez 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 Alvarez the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. STATEMENT OF FACTS The facts of the offense are well summarized in the statement of facts in appellant’s opening brief. We will include them here for convenience. A. The Prosecution Case The prosecution’s first witness, San Diego Police Department Officer Joseph Charlot, testified about an undercover narcotics buy-bust operation that he was involved with on November 13, 2019, in the East Village area of downtown San Diego. On that date, Officer Charlot was working in an undercover capacity downtown in the Crime Suppression Team. Officer Charlot’s objective was to purchase a controlled substance from whoever would sell it to him. At approximately, 10:00 a.m., Officer Charlot arrived in the East Village area wearing a recording device and with prerecorded bills which he had logged all of the currency serial numbers down. At approximately 10:00 a.m., at the intersection of 14th and Imperial streets, Officer Charlot told an African-American male that he was looking for 2 someone to sell him a “dub of crys.” Officer Charlot testified that a “dub” was $20 worth, “crys” was crystal methamphetamine. The African-American male told him that he would take him to find someone to sell him the controlled substance. Then, Officer Charlot followed the man to the intersection of 16th and Imperial. At that intersection, Officer Charlot stated that Jesus Jose Alvarez, who he positively identified in court during his testimony, asked him what he was looking for, and Officer Charlot told him that he was looking for a “dub of crys.” Officer Charlot testified that Mr. Alvarez replied he “got me.” At that point, Officer Charlot testified that Mr. Alvarez kneeled down and reached to the left side of his body and pulled out a little baggie that had a white crystalline-like substance inside, which based on the officer’s training and experience looked like methamphetamine to Officer Charlot. Then, Mr. Alvarez took out two pieces of the substance; Officer Charlot handed him $20 of the prerecorded money; and Mr. Alvarez gave him the two pieces of the substance. Officer Charlot then walked away from the area and uniformed officers came in to detain the suspects. Officer Charlot came back to the intersection and confirmed that the uniformed officer had arrested the person who had sold him the substance. After being arrested, another officer, San Diego Police Department Officer Grants Huff, located one of the prerecorded $20 bills in Mr. Alvarez’s front left pocket. Daniel Glorae, a criminalist for the San Diego Police Department in the forensic chemistry unit, testified that the substance sold to Officer Charlot was confirmed by both a crystal test and an instrumental test to be crystal methamphetamine in the amount of .43 grams.

3 B. The Defense Case Mr. Alvarez called San Diego Police Department Officer Robert Nelson as a defense witness. Officer Nelson testified that he was one of the uniformed officers who arrived after Officer Charlot completed his operation. Upon arrival, he detained a woman named Martha Gillette because she could have been involved in the transaction. He testified that a small amount of tar heroin was found in one of Gillette’s boots, and Gillette was given a citation and released. He also testified that he did not find any baggies, scales or a phone with incriminating texts on Alvarez’s phone. He also testified that Alvarez showed a couple of signs of being under the influence: he was fidgety and nervousness. 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 a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the defense motion to strike the true finding on the strike prior under Penal Code section 1385. 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 Alvarez on this appeal.

4 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

AARON, J.

GUERRERO, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Superior Court (Romero) S045097 · 1996-06-20
People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12