P. v. Yamasaki CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D062340 · 2013-03-05 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCN264816-2
Trial judge: Aaron H. Katz
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Patricia D. Benke (author), Alex C. McDonald, Judith L. Haller

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T06:57Z · confidence high

The trial court issued a nunc pro tunc minute order correcting presentence custody credits to 79 days actual and 78 days conduct. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record found no reasonably arguable issues of error.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Nunc pro tunc minute order correcting presentence custody credits “A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issue listed pursuant to Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues.”	de novo	not reached	agree with court The appellate court did not review the trial court's specific calculation of credits because appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief presenting no argument for reversal. The court performed an independent review of the record and found no reasonably arguable issues, thereby affirming the judgment without addressing the merits of the credit calculation.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to conduct an independent review of the record to identify any reasonably arguable issues when no argument is presented.
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 review the record independently.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for cases where appointed counsel presents no argument. The court explicitly states it reviewed the record and found no reasonably arguable issues, which is the required standard for affirmance in this context.

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

The trial court, on Yamasaki's ex parte application to correct presentence credits, entered a nunc pro tunc minute order awarding 79 days' actual credit and 78 days' conduct credit (157 total) rather than the 137 actual and 68 conduct days he claimed. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief, Yamasaki filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issue, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Nunc pro tunc order of June 13, 2012 fixing presentence custody credits at 79 actual days and 78 conduct days (157 total), denying the larger award of 137 actual and 68 conduct days requested in defendant's ex parte application “On June 13, 2012, the court filed a minute order, nunc pro tunc to March 30, 2011, reflecting 79 days' actual credit and 78 days' conduct credit, a total of 157.”	unclear	correct	unsure The appellate court conducted only a Wende/Anders independent review and stated no standard or analysis of the credit computation. The opinion itself concedes the record does not disclose when or how long Yamasaki was in presentence custody or what credits were originally awarded, so nothing in the opinion permits verification that 79 actual days (rather than the roughly 137-138 days he claimed for July 9 to November 23, 2009) is correct. The result is plausible, since the court appears to have doubled conduct credit, but the opinion gives no basis to confirm the actual-day count, so I cannot say the ruling was right or wrong.

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 must so advise the court and file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the standard Wende/Anders procedure and reaches a defensible result, but it offers no analysis of the one issue counsel flagged, even though the opinion itself states the record does not reveal the custody dates or original credit award needed to check the 79-day actual-credit figure against the 137 days claimed. It also does not address People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496, a published decision holding Wende review is not required on appeals from postjudgment orders, though as a sister-district opinion it was not binding on this court.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 3/5/13 P. v. Yamasaki 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, D062340

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN264816-2)

MICHAEL YAMASAKI,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Aaron H.

Katz, Judge. Affirmed.

Michael Yamasaki was convicted of two counts of burglary (Pen. Code, § 459);

possessing a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)); possessing a hypodermic syringe, a misdemeanor (Bus. & Prof. Code, former § 4140); and possessing not more than 28.5 grams of marijuana, an infraction (Health & Saf. Code, § 11357, subd. (b)). Yamasaki was found to have served three prior prison terms (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). The court sentenced him to six years in prison: the three-year upper term on one of the burglary counts, concurrent terms on the other two felony counts and one year for each prison prior. The record does not disclose when or how long Yamasaki was in custody before sentencing or what custody and conduct credits the court initially awarded.

On June 5, 2012, Yamasaki filed an ex parte application in the trial court for a correction of presentence credits. He asserted he had been in custody from July 9, 2009, to November 23, 2009, and was entitled to 137 days' actual credit and 68 days' conduct credit, rather than the 79 days' actual credit and the 38 days' conduct credit the court had awarded. On June 13, 2012, the court filed a minute order, nunc pro tunc to March 30, 2011, reflecting 79 days' actual credit and 78 days' conduct credit, a total of 157.

Yamasaki appeals the June 13 order.

Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the proceedings below.

Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel lists, as a possible, but not arguable, issue:

whether Yamasaki received all credits to which he was entitled.

We granted Yamasaki permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded. A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issue listed pursuant to Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Yamasaki has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.

2 DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

BENKE, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

HALLER, J.

MCDONALD, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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