P. v. Ortega CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D062488 · 2013-04-26 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD239769
Trial judge: Laura W. Halgren
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Cynthia Aaron (author), Alex C. McDonald, Gilbert Nares

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T06:55Z · confidence high

The trial court accepted Ortega's guilty plea to attempted arson and felony child abuse, denied probation, and sentenced her to four years in state prison. 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 issues.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Affirmance of the judgment following a Wende review “A review of the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issue listed pursuant to Anders, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues.”	de novo	not reached	agree with court The court applied the standard Wende/Anders review, which requires an independent examination of the record to determine if there are any reasonably arguable issues. The court concluded that no such issues existed, including the specific constitutional validity issue raised by counsel. This is the standard procedure for such appeals.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appellate counsel to file a brief identifying issues and the court to independently review the record if counsel finds no arguable issues.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to withdraw from an appeal where no arguable issues exist, requiring a brief identifying potential issues and court review.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it follows the established Wende/Anders protocol for reviewing appeals where counsel finds no arguable issues. It correctly identifies the standard of review and the outcome based on the lack of reasonably arguable issues in the record.

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

Erika Ortega pled guilty to attempted arson of an inhabited structure and two counts of felony child abuse under a plea bargain with an indicated six-year maximum, and the San Diego Superior Court denied probation and imposed a midterm four-year principal term with concurrent terms on the other counts. On appeal her counsel filed a Wende brief identifying only the constitutional validity of the plea as a possible issue, and the Court of Appeal, after independent review of the record, found no arguable issues and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Acceptance of the negotiated guilty plea in exchange for an indicated maximum sentence of six years (the sole Anders issue identified by counsel). “"Is appellant's negotiated plea in exchange for [an] indicated maximum sentence of six years constitutionally valid?"”	unclear	correct	agree with court The opinion recites a factual basis admitted by Ortega and a plea bargain under which she received a sentence well below the indicated maximum, and the court conducted the independent Wende/Anders review. Nothing in the recited record suggests an involuntary or unknowing plea. However, a challenge to the validity of the plea requires a certificate of probable cause under Penal Code section 1237.5, and the opinion does not say whether one was obtained; the result is nonetheless the same because the issue is not arguable on this record.
Denial of probation and selection of the midterm of four years on count 2 as the principal term, with concurrent terms on counts 1 and 3. “The trial court denied probation and sentenced Ortega to the midterm of four years on count 2, which the court selected as the principal term.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The sentence was within the indicated maximum and the court chose the midterm with concurrent rather than consecutive terms; the appellate court found no arguable error on independent review. The opinion gives no detail about the probation decision, but a midterm, concurrent sentence for attempted arson of an inhabited dwelling and child abuse is not facially unreasonable and no abuse of discretion appears from what is recited.

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 but must identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal; the court then independently examines the record.
missed: People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 — A Wende opinion should set out the offenses, the procedural history, the sentence, the issues counsel identified, and the court's reasons for finding no arguable issue; the opinion here complies only in bare outline and does not cite Kelly.
missed: People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084 — A defendant appealing after a guilty plea may not challenge the validity of the plea without a certificate of probable cause under Penal Code section 1237.5, which is strictly enforced; the opinion lists plea validity as the Anders issue without addressing whether a certificate was obtained.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court performed the required Wende/Anders independent review and reached a defensible result on a record showing a negotiated plea with an admitted factual basis and a sentence well within the indicated maximum. It did not address whether a certificate of probable cause existed for the plea-validity issue counsel flagged, and its recitation of reasons is minimal.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 4/26/13 P. v. Ortega 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, D062488

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD239769)

ERIKA ORTEGA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Laura W. Halgren, Judge. Affirmed.

I. INTRODUCTION

Erika Ortega pled guilty to one count of attempted arson of an inhabited structure (Pen. Code, §§ 664/451, subd. (b))1 and two counts of felony child abuse (§ 273a, subd.

(a)). The trial court sentenced Ortega to the midterm of four years on count 2 and imposed concurrent terms on the other counts. We affirm the judgment.

1 Further statutory references are to the Penal Code. II.

BACKGROUND

Ortega was charged with one count of attempted arson of an inhabited structure (§§ 664/451, subd. (b); count 1); three counts of felony child abuse (§ 273a, subd. (a);

counts 2, 3, 4); two counts of false imprisonment (§ 236; counts 5, 6); one count of arson of property (§ 451, subd. (d); count 7); one count of false reporting of an emergency (§ 148.3, subd. (a); count 8); and one count of false reporting of a crime to a police officer (§ 148.5, subd. (a); count 9).

Pursuant to a plea bargain, Ortega pled guilty to counts 1, 2, and 3 in exchange for a sentence to be determined by the court, and dismissal of the remaining charges. The court had indicated that it would not impose a sentence longer than six years.

As the factual basis for her plea, Ortega admitted to willfully, maliciously and unlawfully attempting to set fire to and burn an inhabited structure (count 1), and to willfully injuring and causing her two children to be inflicted with unjustifiable pain and suffering (counts 2 and 3).

The trial court denied probation and sentenced Ortega to the midterm of four years on count 2, which the court selected as the principal term. The court imposed a four-year concurrent term on count three, and a two-year concurrent term on count 1.

Ortega filed a timely notice of appeal.

Ortega's appointed appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We invited Ortega to file a brief on her own behalf, but she has not responded.

2 III.

DISCUSSION

Ortega's counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to review the record for error, as mandated by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel lists as a possible, but not arguable, issue: "Is appellant's negotiated plea in exchange for [an] indicated maximum sentence of six years constitutionally valid?"

A review of the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issue listed pursuant to Anders, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Ortega has been competently represented by counsel in this appeal.

IV.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

AARON, J.

WE CONCUR:

NARES, Acting P. J.

McDONALD, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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