People v. Stanton CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D079627 · 2022-07-27 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCN413168
Trial judge: Michael D. Washington
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Cynthia Aaron, Joan K. Irion

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:47Z · confidence high

The trial court accepted Stanton's guilty pleas to multiple firearm offenses, struck the admitted strike prior, and sentenced him to 32 months in custody. 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
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 Wende/Anders review, examining the entire record to determine if any arguable issues existed. The court concluded that no such issues were present, thereby affirming the lower court's judgment. This is the standard procedural outcome for a Wende appeal where counsel identifies no merit.
Sufficiency of factual basis for guilty pleas “1. Was there a sufficient factual basis for the pleas?”	de novo	not reached	agree with court Appellate counsel identified the sufficiency of the factual basis for the pleas as a potential issue to be considered. The court reviewed the record and determined that this issue did not constitute an arguable ground for reversal, effectively finding the factual basis sufficient or the issue meritless.
Consecutive sentencing on counts 3 and 4 “2. Did the court err in imposing consecutive terms on counts 3 and 4?”	abuse of discretion	not reached	agree with court Appellate counsel raised the issue of whether the trial court erred in imposing consecutive terms for the possession of a short barrel rifle and a silencer. The court reviewed the record and concluded that this was not an arguable issue for reversal, implying the sentencing structure was lawful or the error was not apparent on the face of the record.

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 if no issues are found.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 367 U.S. 738 — Establishes the federal constitutional requirement for independent appellate review when counsel files a no-merit brief.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it strictly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for reviewing a no-merit brief. It correctly identifies the potential issues raised by counsel and states that the court has reviewed the entire record to find no arguable errors.

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

Stanton pleaded guilty without a plea agreement to four firearm-related felonies and admitted a strike prior; the trial court struck the strike and sentenced him to 32 months, imposing consecutive terms on counts 3 and 4. On appeal, counsel filed a Wende brief, Stanton filed nothing, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Acceptance of the guilty pleas as supported by a sufficient factual basis (Pen. Code, § 1192.5) “1. Was there a sufficient factual basis for the pleas?”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion recites that Stanton admitted in the change of plea that he possessed a firearm, ammunition, a short barrel rifle, and a silencer after a felony conviction, which on its face supplies a factual basis for each count. The court does not state a standard of review and gives no further detail, so the conclusion is plausible but cannot be independently verified from the opinion.
Imposition of consecutive terms on counts 3 and 4 (possession of short barrel rifle/shotgun and possession of a firearm silencer) “2. Did the court err in imposing consecutive terms on counts 3 and 4?”	unclear	correct	unsure Consecutive sentencing is ordinarily reviewed for abuse of discretion and a section 654 question would turn on whether the possessions involved separate objects and intents, but the opinion supplies no facts about the sentencing reasons or the items possessed. The court simply reports that its Wende review found no arguable issue, which is a defensible result but one the reader cannot test on this record.
Overall judgment following Wende/Anders independent review of the record “We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The court followed the Wende procedure: counsel filed a no-issues brief identifying potential issues, the defendant was invited to file a supplemental brief and did not, and the court states it reviewed the entire record. Nothing in the opinion suggests an arguable issue was overlooked, though the opinion's brevity prevents confirmation.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel files a brief raising no 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 file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal; the opinion miscites the reporter volume as 367 U.S. 738.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the standard Wende/Anders procedure, identifies counsel's two potential issues, and reports an independent review of the record finding no arguable error, which is a defensible disposition for an open guilty plea with a lenient sentence. It is skeletal, however: it does not explain why the consecutive terms on counts 3 and 4 raise no section 654 or sentencing-discretion concern, and it miscites Anders as 367 U.S. 738 rather than 386 U.S. 738.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 7/27/22 P. v. Stanton 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, D079627

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN413168)

DAVID STANTON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Michael D. Washington, Judge. Affirmed. Russell S. Babcock, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. David Stanton pleaded guilty to all of the charges without any agreement with the prosecution. Specifically, Stanton pleaded guilty to felon in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code,1 § 29800, subd. (a)(1)); prohibited person owning/possessing ammunition (§ 30705, subd. (a)(1)); possession of 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. short barrel rifle or shotgun (§ 33215); and possession of a firearm silencer (§ 33410). Stanton also admitted a strike prior (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)). The trial court struck the “strike” prior and sentenced Stanton to a term of 32 months in custody. Stanton 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 Stanton the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. STATEMENT OF FACTS This appeal is from a guilty plea. In the change of plea, Stanton admitted he possessed a firearm, ammunition, a short barrel rifle, and a silencer after previously being convicted of a felony and was prohibited from possessing these items. 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) 367 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified the following possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: 1. Was there a sufficient factual basis for the pleas? 2. Did the court err in imposing consecutive terms on counts 3 and 4? 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 Stanton on this appeal.

2 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

AARON, J.

IRION, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12