P. v. Thomas CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D062633 · 2013-04-30 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD240952
Trial judge: Dwayne K. Moring
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Alex C. McDonald (author), Judith D. McConnell, Gilbert Nares

Analysis

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

The trial court denied the defendant's Romero motion, dismissed four prior prison term allegations, and sentenced him to 32 months in state prison following a guilty plea. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after finding no reasonably arguable issues on independent review.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of the defendant's motion to strike prior prison term enhancements under People v. Romero. “The court denied Thomas's motion under People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, dismissed the four prior prison term allegations, denied probation, and sentenced Thomas to 32 months in state prison.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The appellate court did not review the merits of the Romero denial because appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief identifying the issue as 'possible, but not arguable,' and the court's independent review disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues.
Denial of the defendant's request to withdraw his guilty plea. “The court advised Thomas that, even if it had been legally permitted to grant Thomas a return to CRC, it would not have granted his request because of the information in the probation report, but it would still adhere to the other previously-indicated benefit of imposing a 32-month sentence, and asked Thomas what he wished to do.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The appellate court did not review the merits of the plea withdrawal denial because counsel identified it as a 'possible, but not arguable' issue, and the court's independent review found no error.
Imposition of a 32-month state prison sentence. “The court, although denying Thomas's Romero motion, dismissed the four prior prison term allegations based in part on Thomas pleading guilty at an early stage, and imposed a 32-month sentence along with various fees.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The appellate court did not review the sentencing calculation or the dismissal of enhancements on the merits, relying instead on the Wende/Anders review which found no reasonably arguable issues.

Authorities

relied: People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 — Establishes the standard for striking prior prison term enhancements under the Three Strikes law.
relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to conduct an independent review of the record for error when no arguable issues are presented.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to file a brief identifying any arguable issues and to request leave to withdraw if none exist.
relied: People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 — Establishes the standard for determining whether a defendant is entitled to new counsel due to a conflict of interest or inadequate representation.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the Wende/Anders framework for reviewing an appeal where counsel identifies no arguable issues. The court explicitly states it conducted an independent review of the record and found no reasonably arguable appellate issues, which is the required standard in such cases.

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 accepted Greg Thomas's guilty plea to five counts and admissions of priors on an indicated sentence, declined to probe further a mentioned-then-abandoned request to withdraw the plea, denied his Romero motion, struck four prior prison term enhancements, denied probation, and imposed 32 months in state prison with fines and credits. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief identifying possible but not arguable issues, Thomas filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no reasonably arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of the Romero motion to strike the prior strike conviction “The court denied Thomas's motion under People v. Superior Court (Romero)”	unclear	correct	agree with court The opinion does not state a standard of review; it simply reports that Wende review disclosed no arguable issue. Denial of a Romero motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and the record recited (a strike, four prior prison terms, eight probation-denial allegations, an unfavorable probation report) gives no indication of abuse. The court also struck four enhancements, which undercuts any claim it failed to exercise discretion. Nothing in the opinion suggests error.
Handling of the defendant's stated wish to withdraw the guilty plea after CRC commitment became unavailable “After conferring with Thomas, defense counsel stated he wanted to proceed to sentencing; Thomas did not further pursue any motion to withdraw his guilty plea.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The trial court explained that CRC would not have been granted regardless, confirmed it would honor the remaining indicated-sentence benefit, and asked the defendant how he wished to proceed; after consultation, the defendant elected to go forward and abandoned the withdrawal request. On that record no motion was actually pending for the court to rule on, so there is no apparent error in not conducting further inquiry. The opinion's conclusion that this is not an arguable issue is supported.
Failure to sua sponte conduct a Marsden inquiry into appointment of new counsel “whether the court should have sua sponte evaluated whether to appoint new counsel under People”	unclear	correct	agree with court The opinion recites no complaint by Thomas about his attorney or any request for substitute counsel; counsel conveyed the plea-withdrawal concern and then conferred with Thomas, who chose to proceed. A Marsden hearing is triggered by some indication from the defendant that he wants new counsel, and nothing in the recited record shows one. The court's treatment as non-arguable is consistent with Marsden.
Imposition of fines, fees, restitution and calculation of custody credits “The court also imposed various fines and calculated credits.”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion gives no detail on the amounts imposed or the credit calculation, so an outside reader cannot independently verify them; it rests on the court's statement that independent review of the record disclosed no arguable error. That is the proper Wende procedure, but the recited facts are too sparse to confirm correctness.

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 wholly frivolous may so advise the court and request to withdraw, submitting a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
relied: People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 — A trial court has discretion under Penal Code section 1385 to strike a prior serious or violent felony conviction allegation in furtherance of justice.
relied: People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 — When a defendant seeks substitution of appointed counsel, the trial court must permit the defendant to explain the basis for the request and relate specific instances of inadequate performance.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion follows the Wende/Anders procedure: it summarizes the facts and procedural history, lists the issues counsel flagged, notes the defendant filed no supplemental brief, and states the court independently reviewed the record and found no arguable issues. For a Wende affirmance this is what the law requires, and nothing in the recited record points to an error the court overlooked.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

Filed 4/30/13 P. v. Thomas 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, D062633

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD240952)

GREG LEE THOMAS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Dwayne K. Moring, Judge. Affirmed.

Greg Thomas pleaded guilty to five counts alleged in the criminal complaint,1 including possession of personal identifying information of 10 or more individuals with intent to defraud (§ 530.5, subd. (c)(3)), making or using a counterfeit access card (§ 484f, subd. (a)), forgery (possessing a completed paper, § 475, subd. (c)), forgery (possessing a blank paper, § 475, subd. (b)), and resisting an officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)).

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code. Thomas also admitted the four prior prison term allegations (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), a prior strike conviction allegation (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)), and eight prior probation denial allegations (§ 1203, subd. (e)(4)).

The court denied Thomas's motion under People v. Superior Court (Romero)

(1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, dismissed the four prior prison term allegations, denied probation, and sentenced Thomas to 32 months in state prison. The court also imposed various fines and calculated credits.

Thomas appeals. We affirm the judgment.

FACTS

At the readiness conference, there was no plea agreement with the district attorney's office. However, the trial court had indicated that if Thomas pleaded guilty the court would impose a maximum sentence of 32 months in state prison, to run concurrently with any term for his parole violation, and would consider commitment to the California Rehabilitation Center (CRC). Considering those assurances, Thomas pleaded guilty to all charges and admitted all allegations.

At the subsequent sentencing hearing, defense counsel stated Thomas wished to withdraw his guilty plea. The basis for withdrawing the plea was that Thomas, as well as counsel and the court, believed commitment to CRC was an option, but that option had been foreclosed by extraneous events. The court advised Thomas that, even if it had been legally permitted to grant Thomas a return to CRC, it would not have granted his request because of the information in the probation report, but it would still adhere to the other previously-indicated benefit of imposing a 32-month sentence, and asked Thomas what 2 he wished to do. After conferring with Thomas, defense counsel stated he wanted to proceed to sentencing; Thomas did not further pursue any motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

The court, although denying Thomas's Romero motion, dismissed the four prior prison term allegations based in part on Thomas pleading guilty at an early stage, and imposed a 32-month sentence along with various fees. Thomas appealed and obtained a certificate of probable cause from the trial court.

DISCUSSION

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 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738. Counsel identifies as possible, but not arguable, issues: (1) whether the court should have sua sponte evaluated whether to appoint new counsel under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118; (2) whether the court should have further examined the basis for Thomas's request to withdraw his guilty plea; (3) whether his waiver of his right to pursue appellate challenges to denial of his Romero motion is valid; (4) whether the order on fines, fees and restitution was valid; and (5) whether credits were properly calculated.

We granted Thomas permission to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf, but 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 has disclosed no reasonably 3 arguable appellate issues, and Thomas has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

McDONALD, J.

WE CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

NARES, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Superior Court (Romero) S045097 · 1996-06-20
People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12
People v. Marsden Crim. 14119 · 1970-02-26