People v. Goodman CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D061713 · 2013-02-28 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCE316313
Trial judge: Roger W. Krauel
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed A jury convicted Keven M.
Area: criminal
Panel: McINTYRE (author), O'Rourke, Joan K. Irion

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T06:58Z · confidence high

The trial court convicted Keven M. Goodman of fleeing from police with willful and wanton disregard for safety and sentenced him to the upper term plus five years for prison priors. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende and finding no reasonably arguable appellate issues.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Conviction and sentence for Vehicle Code section 2800.2 violation “We have examined the record pursuant to Wende and considered the possible issues referred to by appointed counsel. We find no reasonably arguable appellate issue.”	de novo	not reached	agree with court The court did not review the merits of the conviction or sentence because it found no arguable issues under the Wende/Anders procedure, rendering the trial court's rulings unreviewed on the merits in this opinion.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to conduct an independent review of the record to identify arguable issues when a defendant is represented by counsel on appeal.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to file a brief identifying potential issues while arguing they are frivolous, allowing the court to conduct an independent review.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the Wende/Anders framework to review the record for arguable issues. It appropriately notes the existence of a separate habeas petition for ineffective assistance of counsel, which is outside the scope of the direct appeal.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:31Z · confidence low

A jury convicted Keven Goodman of felony evading an officer with willful or wanton disregard for safety (Veh. Code, § 2800.2), he admitted eight prison priors, and the trial court imposed the upper term of three years plus five one-year prior-prison-term enhancements, striking three others. On appeal appointed counsel filed a Wende brief listing five possible issues, Goodman filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issue, and affirmed, noting it had separately issued an order to show cause on a companion habeas petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Judgment of conviction under Vehicle Code section 2800.2 (overall Wende independent review of the record) “We have examined the record pursuant to Wende and considered the possible issues referred to by appointed counsel. We find no reasonably arguable appellate issue.”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion recites facts amply supporting the elements of section 2800.2 (marked patrol cars, lights and sirens, roughly nine traffic violations over 26 miles, and Goodman's own admission to multiple violations), and the court followed the Wende/Anders procedure of independent review after counsel identified possible issues and the defendant declined to file a supplemental brief. Because the opinion gives no analysis of the listed issues, I cannot independently verify the conclusion, but nothing in the recited record points to a specific legal error.
Jury instruction that the initial traffic stop was legal “whether (1) the trial court properly instructed the jury that the initial traffic stop was legal”	unclear	correct	unsure The lawfulness of a detention is ordinarily a question of law for the court, and the lawfulness of the stop is not an element of section 2800.2, so an instruction resolving that question would not usurp the jury's fact-finding on the charged elements. The opinion, however, supplies no analysis of the instruction's wording or how it interacted with Goodman's testimony that he fled in fear after being pepper-sprayed, so I cannot confirm the court's conclusion from the record quoted.
Imposition of the upper term of three years plus five prior-prison-term enhancements “The trial court sentenced him to the upper term of three years, plus five years for five of his priors, with the court striking three of the priors.”	unclear	correct	unsure Under the post-Cunningham determinate sentencing law a single aggravating circumstance supports an upper term, and eight admitted prison priors (three of which the court struck) readily furnish such a circumstance; the sentence is within statutory limits. The opinion does not state the court's reasons for the upper term, so I cannot independently rule out an abuse of discretion, though none is apparent.
Exclusion of photographs of Goodman's searched car “(4) the trial court erred in excluding photos of Goodman's searched car”	unclear	correct	unsure Evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion, and photographs of the car after the search would have marginal relevance to whether Goodman fled with willful or wanton disregard for safety. The opinion offers no description of the photographs or the trial court's stated grounds, so the conclusion cannot be verified from the record quoted.
Alleged prosecutorial misconduct in repeatedly characterizing the deputies' use of force as legal or justified “(5) the prosecutor committed misconduct in referring repeatedly to the amount of force used as legal or justified”	unclear	correct	unsure Prosecutorial argument that the officers' force was lawful would be responsive to Goodman's defense that he fled out of fear after an unjustified pepper-spraying, and comment on the evidence is generally permissible; the opinion also does not indicate whether any objection was made, which would bear on forfeiture. Without the actual statements, I cannot assess whether they crossed into misstatements of law.
Trial counsel's failure to seek a 'wobbler' determination (ineffective assistance claim) “(2) trial counsel was ineffective for not moving for a "wobbler" determination”	unclear	correct	agree with court Ineffective assistance claims that turn on matters outside the record are generally not cognizable on direct appeal and are properly raised by habeas, and the opinion notes an order to show cause was issued on a companion habeas petition raising ineffective assistance, which is the appropriate vehicle. The direct-appeal record as described gives no basis to find deficient performance or prejudice.

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 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 appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court followed the required Wende/Anders procedure, identified the issues counsel flagged, gave Goodman an opportunity to file his own brief, and independently reviewed a record whose recited facts clearly support the section 2800.2 conviction. As is typical of Wende affirmances, the opinion does not explain why any of the five listed issues is not arguable, so the result is defensible but the reasoning is not laid out.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 2/28/13 P. v. Goodman 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, D061713

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SCE316313) v. KEVEN M. GOODMAN, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Roger W.

Krauel, Judge. Affirmed A jury convicted Keven M. Goodman of fleeing from police in a motor vehicle, with willful and wanton disregard for safety, in violation of Vehicle Code section 2800.2.

(Undesignated statutory references are to the Vehicle Code.) Goodman later admitted eight prison priors and the prosecution dismissed three other prison priors. The trial court sentenced him to the upper term of three years, plus five years for five of his priors, with the court striking three of the priors. Goodman filed a timely notice of appeal asking us to examine the record and determine if there are any issues deserving of further briefing. (People v. Wende (1979)

25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) We have done so, find none, and hence affirm the judgment.

FACTS

Very early in the morning on November 15, 2011, Deputy Sheriffs Thomas Fletcher and John Greene were driving separate marked patrol cars in an unincorporated area of El Cajon. From about one hundred to two hundred feet away, Fletcher heard the radio of an approaching green Mustang that he later learned was being driven by Goodman. Believing the loud music to constitute a noise violation, he followed the car for about a minute and then effected a traffic stop by turning on his lights. The vehicle stopped immediately. Fletcher had encountered Goodman before, and during the prior contact, Fletcher pulled his gun on Goodman when Goodman reached into a jacket pocket. Fletcher later found that Goodman had a knife concealed in that pocket.

After Goodman admitted to being on parole, Fletcher decided to do a parole search. At some point, Greene arrived at the scene. Believing that Goodman had an unfavorable view of him, Fletcher asked Greene to do the search. As Fletcher stepped back to his patrol car to run a record check on Goodman, Greene stood by the passenger- side door and spoke with Goodman. Greene became nervous and told Goodman to keep his hands on the steering wheel when Goodman reached between the center console of the car and the passenger-side floorboard. Goodman complied, but then reached for his cell phone. Greene again told Goodman to put his hands on the wheel and Goodman complied. Greene motioned for Fletcher to approach. Greene told Fletcher that 2 Goodman made him uncomfortable because Goodman was possibly reaching for something.

Goodman refused Greene's request to put his arms behind his back to be handcuffed. Goodman became argumentative and refused to comply. After about 10 to 15 seconds of back and forth between Greene and Goodman, Fletcher pepper-sprayed the inside of Goodman's car based on Goodman's "verbal noncompliance." After Goodman put his head outside the window, Greene pepper-sprayed Goodman's face. Goodman yelled and then started his car and quickly drove off.

Fletcher and Greene pursued Goodman in their patrol cars with their lights and sirens activated. After pursuing Goodman for about 11 minutes and 26 miles, Fletcher lost sight of Goodman's vehicle on the freeway and discontinued the pursuit. During the pursuit, Fletcher observed around nine traffic violations, including three stop sign violations, red light violations, driving in oncoming traffic, driving over the double yellow line on a divided highway, and driving at speeds in excess of 100 miles per hour.

Law enforcement later found Goodman's car in Lakeside, but Goodman could not be found and was not taken into custody on that day.

Goodman testified that he passed two patrol cars as he drove his Mustang. He claimed that the car's radio did not have the capacity to play very loud. After the traffic stop, Goodman claimed that he shielded his eyes from the patrol cars' lights, but that he complied when the second officer asked him to put his hands on the steering wheel. He sat in that position for five minutes.

3 Goodman asked, "What happened?" after one of the deputies suddenly asked him to put his hands behind his back. The deputy repeated the request and explained that he wanted to handcuff Goodman. When Goodman looked to the passenger side, he was pepper-sprayed through that side of the car. He was then pepper-sprayed from the driver side as well. Believing he had been pepper-sprayed for no reason, Goodman became afraid for his life and thought he might be shot.

Goodman denied that he had driven as fast as Fletcher had claimed, noting that his vision was impaired from the pepper spray. He did testify, however, to running several stop signs and going eighty miles per hour on the freeway. On cross-examination, he admitted that he ran two stop signs and sped twice, once on surface streets and once on the freeway, for a total of four violations.

DISCUSSION

On appeal, Goodman's appointed appellate counsel filed an opening brief pursuant to Wende, requesting that we conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable appellate issues. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Under Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, he listed as possible but not arguable issues, whether (1) the trial court properly instructed the jury that the initial traffic stop was legal, (2) trial counsel was ineffective for not moving for a "wobbler" determination, (3) the trial court erred in imposing the upper term, (4) the trial court erred in excluding photos of Goodman's searched car, and (5) the prosecutor committed misconduct in referring repeatedly to the amount of force used as legal or justified. We granted Goodman permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded.

4 We have examined the record pursuant to Wende and considered the possible issues referred to by appointed counsel. We find no reasonably arguable appellate issue.

Competent counsel has represented Goodman on this appeal.

In a subsequently filed petition for writ of habeas corpus (In re Keven M.

Goodman on Habeas Corpus, D062777), Goodman asserted through the same attorney that filed the Wende appeal that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. On December 13, 2012, we issued an order to show cause made returnable before the superior court on the petition for writ of habeas corpus.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

MCINTYRE, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

O'ROURKE, J.

IRION, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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