P. v. Skelton CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCN300114, SCN266066SCN281799
- Trial judge
- K. Michael Kirkman
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Judith D. McConnell (author), Cynthia Aaron, Joan K. Irion
Analysis
The trial court accepted a negotiated guilty plea to residential burglary counts and imposed a stipulated 12-year prison sentence. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende found no reasonably arguable errors.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Affirmance of the judgment following a Wende/Anders review“A review of the record pursuant to Wende and Anders, including the possible issues listed pursuant to Anders, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues.” | de novo | not reached | agree with court The appellate court conducted an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende because appointed counsel filed a brief identifying no arguable issues. The court concluded that no reasonably arguable errors existed, thereby affirming the lower court's judgment. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Appointed appellate counsel must conduct an independent review of the record to identify any reasonably arguable issues when no issues are presented in the brief.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel must file a brief identifying any arguable issues, even if none are found, to ensure the right to counsel is not violated.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly applies the Wende/Anders procedure by noting counsel's identification of potential but non-arguable issues and the court's subsequent independent review. The conclusion that no reasonably arguable issues exist is supported by the standard of review for such procedural appeals.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court accepted Latina Skelton's negotiated guilty plea to two counts of residential burglary with a strike prior admission and imposed the stipulated 12-year prison sentence, including consecutive terms in two probation-revocation cases. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief, Skelton filed nothing on her own behalf, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Judgment of conviction on negotiated guilty plea and stipulated 12-year sentence (including Anders-listed possible issues: appeal waiver validity, plea validity, factual basis, restitution, custody credits, ineffective assistance)“A review of the record pursuant to Wende and Anders, including the possible issues listed pursuant to Anders, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues.” | unclear | correct | agree with court This is a Wende/Anders independent review rather than review of a contested ruling; the court states no specific standard. The record described (negotiated plea, stipulated sentence, strike admission, consecutive one-third-midterm subordinate terms doubled where appropriate) is consistent with a lawful sentence, and the sentence computation as recited matches the determinate sentencing scheme. The defendant did not file a supplemental brief, so under People v. Kelly the court was not required to address any specific contention. Nothing in the opinion suggests error, but the opinion contains too little detail about the plea colloquy, credits, or restitution to independently verify those items, and it does not mention whether a certificate of probable cause was obtained for any plea-validity challenge. |
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 frivolous may so advise the court and request to withdraw, accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the Wende/Anders procedure, identifies counsel's listed possible issues, notes the defendant did not file a personal brief, and reports that independent review disclosed no arguable issues, which is all that is required when the defendant raises nothing herself. It is terse and does not explain why each listed possible issue fails or address the certificate-of-probable-cause question implicated by a plea-validity issue, but the result is defensible on the record described.
Opinion
Filed 3/18/13 P. v. Skelton 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, D062834
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. Nos. SCN300114, SCN266066 & SCN281799) LATINA SKELTON, Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, K. Michael Kirkman, Judge. Affirmed.
Latina Skelton entered a negotiated guilty plea to two counts of residential burglary (Pen.
Code, §§ 459, 460;1 counts 2 and 4), one with another person, other than an accomplice, present in the residence (§ 667.5, subd. (c)(21); count 4). Skelton admitted having a strike prior conviction (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)). The court imposed a stipulated 12-year prison sentence: eight years (twice the middle term) on count 2; two years eight months (one-third the middle term, doubled) on count 4; and eight-month terms (one-third the middle term) for an attempted residential burglary and a second degree burglary in two cases in which the court had revoked probation. Skelton appeals. We affirm.
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. BACKGROUND On two separate occasions, Skelton entered a home with the intent to commit theft. On one of those occasions, a person was inside the home.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and 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 (Wende). Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) counsel mentions as possible, but not arguable, issues:
(1) whether Skelton's waiver of the right to appeal is valid; (2) whether the guilty plea is constitutionally valid; (3) whether there was a sufficient factual basis for the plea; (4) whether the restitution order was proper; (5) whether credits were calculated correctly; and (6) whether defense counsel was ineffective.
We granted Skelton permission to file a brief on her own behalf. She has not responded.
A review of the record pursuant to Wende and Anders, including the possible issues listed pursuant to Anders, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Skelton has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
MCCONNELL, P. J. WE CONCUR:
AARON, J.
IRION, J. 2
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12