People v. Boyd CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD286837
- Trial judge
- Joan P. Weber
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Judith D. McConnell, William S. Dato
Analysis
The trial court denied Boyd's motion to set aside the information based on a remote preliminary hearing and accepted his subsequent guilty plea. The appellate court affirmed the judgment after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende and finding no arguable issues for reversal.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of motion to set aside information (Pen. Code § 995) due to remote preliminary hearing“In October 2020, Boyd filed a motion under section 995 to set aside the information because the preliminary hearing was conducted remotely. The motion was denied” | unclear | not reached | unsure The appellate court did not explicitly analyze the merits of the § 995 motion or the remote hearing issue in its discussion; it only noted that counsel identified it as a potential issue and that the court's independent review found no arguable issues for reversal. |
Acceptance of guilty plea and imposition of sentence“In April 2021, Boyd pleaded guilty to all charges and admitted all allegations, pursuant to an agreement with the trial court for a sentence of 13 years in prison.” | unclear | not reached | unsure The opinion does not discuss the validity of the plea or the sentencing; it simply states the facts of the plea and the subsequent affirmance of the judgment. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appellate counsel to file a brief identifying arguable issues and the court to conduct an independent review of the record when counsel finds no arguable issues.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires counsel to identify potentially meritorious issues and the court to review the record to ensure no arguable issues are overlooked.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it follows the required Wende/Anders protocol for appointed appellate counsel. However, it is extremely brief and provides no substantive legal analysis for the specific issues identified by counsel, relying solely on the court's unexplained independent review.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court overruled Boyd's objection to a remote Covid-era preliminary hearing, denied his section 995 motion premised on the remote hearing, accepted his guilty plea to five counts of attempted carjacking with admitted priors, and sentenced him to the agreed 13-year term. On appeal, counsel filed a Wende brief, Boyd filed nothing, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Overruling of objection to remote preliminary hearing and denial of Penal Code section 995 motion to set aside the information“In October 2020, Boyd filed a motion under section 995 to set aside the information because the preliminary hearing was conducted remotely. The motion was denied” | unclear | correct | agree with court The court did not analyze the ruling but found no arguable issue after Wende review. That conclusion is defensible: under People v. Pompa-Ortiz irregularities in the preliminary hearing are reviewable post-conviction only on a showing of prejudice, and a guilty plea generally waives non-jurisdictional defects in pre-plea proceedings; nothing in the opinion suggests prejudice from the remote format. |
Acceptance of guilty plea with admissions and imposition of the stipulated 13-year sentence“Boyd was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement.” | unclear | correct | agree with court Boyd admitted taking vehicles from the immediate presence of five people; a passenger can be a carjacking victim under People v. Hill (2000) 23 Cal.4th 853, so counsel's second Anders issue has no traction. The sentence matched the negotiated disposition and the opinion discloses no defect in the plea or sentencing. |
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 who finds no meritorious issues should identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal to assist the court's review.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion follows the Wende/Anders procedure, states the facts and procedural history, notes the possible issues counsel identified, and reports an independent record review finding nothing arguable. It offers no substantive analysis of the remote-preliminary-hearing issue or the passenger-victim issue, but a Wende opinion is not required to do so and the result is consistent with settled law on post-plea review of preliminary hearing irregularities and on carjacking victims.
Opinion
Filed 4/25/22 P. v. Boyd 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, D079130
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD286837)
JAMES EARL BOYD,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Joan P. Weber, Judge. Affirmed. Shaghayegh Dinata-Hanson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. James Boyd was charged with five counts of attempted carjacking while on parole (Pen. Code,1 §§ 664, 215, subd. (a), 3000 & 1203.085, subd. (b)). It was also alleged that Boyd had suffered a serious felony prior conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)) and a strike prior (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)).
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. In September 2020, the court held a remote preliminary hearing due to the Covid-19 emergency orders. Boyd’s objection to the remote hearing was overruled. Boyd was held to answer on the complaint. In October 2020, Boyd filed a motion under section 995 to set aside the information because the preliminary hearing was conducted remotely. The motion was denied In April 2021, Boyd pleaded guilty to all charges and admitted all allegations, pursuant to an agreement with the trial court for a sentence of 13 years in prison. Boyd was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement. Boyd 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 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 Boyd the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. STATEMENT OF FACTS In his change of plea, Boyd admitted he “attempted to take a vehicle from the immediate presence of [five] people with the intent to temporarily deprive them of the vehicle.” 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 which were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal.
2 1. Whether Boyd’s involuntary lack of personal presence at the preliminary hearing can be challenged on appeal. 2. Whether a passenger in a car be a lawful victim of an attempted carjacking. 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 Boyd on this appeal. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
DATO, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12