People v. Clay CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCN427468
- Trial judge
- Harry Elias (retired judge)
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), O'Rourke, Truc T. Do
Analysis
The trial court accepted Clay's guilty plea to false imprisonment by force and sentenced him to two years in local prison pursuant to a plea agreement. The Court of Appeal 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
Affirmance of the judgment following a Wende review“We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.” | de novo | not reached | agree with court The court applied the standard of review for a Wende appeal, which requires the court to independently review the record for any arguable issues. The court found no such issues, leading to the affirmance. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to file a brief identifying arguable issues and the court to independently review the record for error.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires counsel to file a brief identifying arguable issues and the court to independently review the record for error.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly identifies the Wende/Anders framework and states that the court performed the required independent review. It reaches the defensible result of affirmance based on the absence of arguable issues in the record.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court accepted Austin Clay's guilty plea to false imprisonment by force (Pen. Code §§ 236/237, subd. (a)), dismissed the remaining charges, and imposed the stipulated two-year local prison sentence. On appeal, counsel filed a Wende brief identifying only a possible custody-credit issue, Clay's pro. per. letter raised matters outside the record, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Entry of judgment and imposition of the stipulated two-year local prison sentence pursuant to the plea agreement“The remaining charges were dismissed, and Clay was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement.” | de novo | correct | agree with court Under Wende and Anders the appellate court conducts an independent review of the entire record; the opinion states it did so and found no arguable issue. The sentence matched the negotiated disposition and nothing in the opinion suggests any error, so the result follows from the procedure applied, though the opinion gives almost no detail about the record it reviewed. |
Calculation and application of custody credits to the sentence (the single Anders issue flagged by counsel)“Whether Clay’s custody credits were properly applied to his sentence.” | de novo | correct | agree with court Counsel identified custody credits as a potential issue, and the court's independent review disclosed no arguable error. The opinion does not recite the credit figures or the dates of custody, so the conclusion cannot be independently verified from the opinion alone, but there is no indication of a specific legal error. |
Consideration of defendant's pro. per. supplemental letter raising matters outside the record“Clay has responded with a one-page letter which discusses matters outside the record.” | unclear | not reached | agree with court An appellate court is confined to the appellate record and properly declines to consider factual assertions not in it. The court acknowledged Clay's letter and explained why it could not be addressed, which satisfies its obligation to note contentions personally raised by the defendant in a Wende appeal. |
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 issues before affirming.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous may so advise the court but must refer to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court followed the required Wende/Anders procedure, acknowledged the defendant's supplemental letter and explained that it concerned matters outside the record, and affirmed after independent review. The opinion is extremely brief and does not describe the custody-credit computation or any other feature of the record, so its soundness rests on the court's representation of its review rather than on reasoning the reader can check.
Opinion
Filed 7/25/22 P. v. Clay 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, D079937
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN427468)
AUSTIN ANDREW CLAY,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Harry Elias, Judge. (Retired Judge of San Diego Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed. Austin Andrew Clay in pro. per.; and Shaghayegh Dinata-Hanson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Austin Andrew Clay entered into a plea agreement, under the terms of which he pleaded guilty to false imprisonment by force (Pen. Code 1 § 236/237, subd. (a)) and agreed to an immediate sentence of two years in 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. local prison. The remaining charges were dismissed, and Clay was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement. Clay 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 Clay the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal. Clay has responded with a one-page letter which discusses matters outside the record. He refers to a woman somehow involved in the case as a “Witch.” Whatever her role might have been in the events in this case, it is not contained in the record of this appeal. STATEMENT OF FACTS In his change of plea form, Clay states he unlawfully violated the personal liberties of another by violence or menace. 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 one issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Whether Clay’s custody credits were properly applied to his sentence. 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 Clay on this appeal.
2 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
O’ROURKE, J.
DO, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12