People v. Smith CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from an order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of Imperial County · No. SPV000934
- Trial judge
- Christopher J. Plourd
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Cynthia Aaron, Joan K. Irion
Analysis
The trial court revoked Smith's post-release community supervision (PRCS) after finding he violated release terms by assaulting his former girlfriend. The Court of Appeal affirmed the order, finding no arguable issues for reversal following a Wende/Anders review of the record.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Order revoking post-release community supervision (PRCS) for violation of release terms (failure to obey laws, contact with and harassment of victim).“We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not identified any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.” | unclear | not reached | unsure The appellate court did not apply a specific standard of review (such as abuse of discretion or substantial evidence) to the trial court's factual findings. Instead, it relied on the Wende/Anders framework to determine that no arguable issues for reversal existed, effectively affirming the order without a substantive legal analysis of the trial court's discretion or the sufficiency of the evidence. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to review the record for arguable issues when counsel cannot identify any, and requires the court to conduct an independent review of the record.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel who believes an appeal is wholly frivolous, requiring a brief identifying any arguable issues and a court review of the record.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound in that it follows the established Wende/Anders protocol for handling appeals where counsel identifies no meritorious issues. However, it is substantively thin because it fails to articulate the standard of review or provide any specific reasoning for why the trial court's findings were correct, relying solely on the negative finding of 'no arguable issues.'
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual disposition unusual dispositionThe Imperial County Superior Court, after a contested evidentiary hearing, found that Timothy P. Smith III violated the terms of his post-release community supervision by failing to obey laws and by contacting, annoying, and harassing his former girlfriend, and it revoked and reinstated PRCS with a 180-day county jail term. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief identifying three potential issues, Smith 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
Finding by a preponderance that Smith was the assailant and violated PRCS terms, resulting in revocation and reinstatement with 180 days in county jail“Following an evidentiary hearing, the court found Smith had failed to obey laws and had contact with and annoyed and harassed the victim, his former girlfriend.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The opinion articulates no standard beyond Wende independent review, but the summarized record shows an independent eyewitness (F.N.) saw the assault and described the suspect, officers detained Smith near the lot shortly after, and the victim identified Smith to the responding officer. That evidence comfortably supports a revocation finding under the preponderance standard that governs supervision violations, and nothing in the opinion suggests an arguable sufficiency challenge. |
Admission, over a hearsay objection, of the victim's out-of-court statements to the responding officer at the revocation hearing“Whether due process guarantees required exclusion of the victim’s hearsay statements unless the prosecution made a showing of good cause, including the unavailability to testify.” | unclear | correct | unsure The court did not analyze the hearsay issue; it simply listed it as a Wende/Anders issue counsel considered and found no arguable error. The opinion does not disclose whether the trial court found good cause for the victim's absence or admitted the statements under a hearsay exception such as spontaneous statement, so I cannot verify the ruling. Any error, however, would likely be harmless given F.N.'s live eyewitness testimony to the assault and Smith's detention near the scene. |
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 before affirming.
- 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, to assist the court's independent review.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the standard Wende/Anders format, recites the facts and counsel's identified issues, and states the court reviewed the entire record and found no arguable issues, which is all that procedure requires; the result is plainly defensible on the summarized evidence. It does not, however, address whether Wende review is even required for an appeal from a PRCS revocation order rather than a first appeal of right from a conviction, nor does it give any analysis of the hearsay/due process issue it lists, so the reader cannot evaluate how those questions were resolved.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
record incompleteOpinion
Filed 5/13/22 P. v. Smith 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, D079959
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SPV000934)
TIMOTHY P. SMITH III, Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Imperial County, Christopher J. Plourd, Judge. Affirmed. Randall Conner, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Timothy P. Smith III appeals an order revoking his post-release community supervision (PRCS) for violating the terms of his release. Smith was reinstated to PRCS subject to commitment to county jail for a period of 180 days. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The probation department sought to revoke Smith’s PRCS based on several alleged violations. Following an evidentiary hearing, the court found Smith had failed to obey laws and had contact with and annoyed and harassed the victim, his former girlfriend. The testimony offered at the evidentiary hearing is well summarized in the appellant’s opening brief. We will incorporate the summary here for background information. “According to testimony presented in the contested hearing, at approximately 1:00 p.m. on December 26, 2021, [F.N.] saw a man assaulting a woman in a Pep Boys parking lot adjacent to Imperial Avenue in El Centro. [F.N.] saw the man kick the woman twice, punch her twice, and swing a bag at her. “El Centro Police Department (ECPD) officer Omar Mandujano arrived at the scene shortly thereafter. He identified the female victim as A.D. A.D., upset and crying, had redness and swelling on her right arm and side. A.D. told Mandujano that Smith, her former boyfriend, had visited her camp, argued with her, pursued her to the parking lot, and struck her with his fists and with a backpack that she had dropped. “F.N. described the suspect as a black male adult wearing a dark gray jacket and dark colored shorts, carrying a white bag. ECPD officers detained a suspect near the parking lot and subsequently identified him as Smith. Smith told Mandujano that A.D. had attacked him.” Smith filed a timely notice of appeal following the court’s order. 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 2 record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Smith 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 court abused its discretion in finding the evidence was sufficient to prove Smith was the assailant. 2. Whether due process guarantees required exclusion of the victim’s hearsay statements unless the prosecution made a showing of good cause, including the unavailability to testify. 3. Whether counsel’s hearsay objection preserved Smith’s right to argue on appeal that due process guarantees required the exclusion of the victim’s hearsay statements absent a showing of good cause. We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not identified any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Smith on this appeal.
3 DISPOSITION The order revoking and reinstating Smith’s PRCS is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
AARON, J.
IRION, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12