P. v. Bentley CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D062957 · 2013-05-01 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD241311
Trial judge: Peter L. Gallagher
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Alex C. McDonald, McINTYRE

Analysis

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

The trial court convicted the defendant of petty theft and commercial burglary, denied her motions for acquittal and to reduce offenses to misdemeanors, and denied her Marsden motions for new counsel. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, finding no reasonably arguable issues of error.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of Marsden motions to replace appointed counsel “Prior to trial, Bentley made two "Marsden"2 motions to replace appointed counsel. Both motions were denied.”	unclear	not reached	agree with court The appellate court conducted an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende and found no reasonably arguable issues, effectively concluding that the trial court's denial of the Marsden motions did not constitute reversible error.
Denial of motions for acquittal and to reduce offenses to misdemeanors “The court denied Bentley's motions for acquittal and to reduce the offenses to misdemeanors.”	unclear	not reached	agree with court The appellate court's independent review under Wende resulted in a finding that no reasonably arguable appellate issues existed, thereby affirming the trial court's rulings on the sufficiency of the evidence and the nature of the offenses.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Establishes the requirement for appellate counsel to file a brief identifying possible issues and for the court to conduct an independent review of the record when counsel finds no arguable issues.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to file a brief identifying any arguable issues, even if none are found, and to request leave to withdraw.
relied: People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 — Establishes the standard for a defendant's motion to substitute appointed counsel based on a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship.

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

A San Diego jury convicted Laurie Lynn Bentley of two counts of petty theft with prior theft convictions and one count of commercial burglary; the trial court denied her two Marsden motions, her motions for acquittal and to reduce the offenses to misdemeanors, and placed her on summary probation with 68 days credited custody. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief identifying five possible but not arguable issues, Bentley filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal, after independently reviewing the record, found no reasonably arguable issues and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of Bentley's two pretrial Marsden motions to replace appointed counsel “1. Did the trial court properly deny Bentley's Marsden motions;”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion does not describe the Marsden hearings or state the abuse-of-discretion standard; it simply reports that independent Wende review disclosed no arguable issue. Without the hearing record quoted, I cannot independently confirm the denials were proper, though nothing in the opinion suggests error.
Effectiveness of trial counsel (possible ineffective assistance claim) “2. Was trial counsel ineffective;”	unclear	correct	unsure Ineffective assistance is listed only as a possible issue; the opinion contains no facts about counsel's performance. The Wende conclusion that no arguable issue exists is unverifiable from the opinion alone.
Admission of Bentley's prior convictions to impeach her trial testimony “3. Did the trial court properly allow impeachment of Bentley with her prior convictions;”	unclear	correct	unsure Impeachment with prior theft convictions involving moral turpitude is generally permissible subject to Evidence Code section 352, but the opinion gives no detail on the ruling. Bentley testified and denied the thefts, so impeachment with theft priors was plausibly proper, but the record is not set out.
Jury instructions given at trial “4. Was the jury properly instructed; and”	unclear	correct	unsure No instructions are identified or quoted in the opinion. The court's Wende review found nothing arguable, which I cannot confirm or dispute on this record.
Imposition of fines and fees at sentencing “5. Did the court lawfully impose various fines.”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion does not list the fines imposed or their statutory bases, so the lawfulness of the fines cannot be evaluated from the opinion. The court's conclusion is consistent with its stated full-record review.
Denial of motions for acquittal and to reduce the offenses to misdemeanors “The court denied Bentley's motions for acquittal and to reduce the offenses to misdemeanors.”	unclear	correct	agree with court These rulings were not listed by counsel as possible issues, but the court stated it reviewed the entire record and found no arguable issue. The recited facts (stolen cosmetics found in her bag; DVDs concealed in her purse and an admission to shoplifting) show substantial evidence supporting the verdicts, so denial of acquittal appears sound; the misdemeanor-reduction ruling is discretionary and undescribed.

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 without merit must file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, and the defendant must be given an opportunity to raise points.
relied: People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 — A defendant seeking substitution of appointed counsel must be permitted to state the reasons, and the court must inquire into the complaints before ruling on the request.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion follows the required Wende/Anders procedure: it recites the facts, procedural history, convictions and sentence, lists the possible issues counsel identified, notes Bentley declined to file her own brief, and states the court independently reviewed the entire record. It offers no substantive analysis of any issue, which is permitted in a Wende affirmance but leaves the correctness of the underlying rulings unverifiable from the opinion itself.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 5/1/13 P. v. Bentley 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, D062957

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD241311)

LAURIE LYNN BENTLEY,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Peter L.

Gallagher, Judge. Affirmed.

Coughlan, Semmer, Fitch & Pott and Earll M. Pott, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. A jury convicted Laurie Lynn Bentley of two counts of petty theft after three prior theft convictions (Pen. Code,1 §§ 484 & 666) and one count of commercial burglary (§ 459). Bentley admitted three prior theft convictions. The court denied Bentley's motions for acquittal and to reduce the offenses to misdemeanors.

Bentley was granted summary probation, subject to 68 days in custody, with credit for 68 days served.

Bentley filed a timely notice of appeal.

Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) raising possible, but not arguable issues. We offered Bentley the opportunity to file her own brief on appeal, but she has not responded.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

On April 18, 2012, Bentley was apprehended by Walmart security personnel with approximately $60 in stolen cosmetics in her bag. At trial, Bentley testified she had gone to Walmart to purchase items and to exchange cosmetics. She denied stealing any items and denied she had concealed cosmetics in her purse.

On June 3, 2012, Bentley and a man were apprehended at a Costco store with five DVD's concealed in Bentley's purse. She admitted to the security personnel that she and the man were shoplifting.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. 2 At trial, Bentley denied shoplifting at Costco and denied that she was aware the man had taken any DVDs. She denied that she had admitted to the security personnel that she had been shoplifting.

Prior to trial, Bentley made two "Marsden"2 motions to replace appointed counsel.

Both motions were denied.

DISCUSSION

As we have previously noted, appellate counsel has filed a brief indicating he is unable to identify any argument for reversal and asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders, supra, 386 U.S.

738, the brief identifies the possible, but not arguable issues:

1. Did the trial court properly deny Bentley's Marsden motions;

2. Was trial counsel ineffective;

3. Did the trial court properly allow impeachment of Bentley with her prior convictions;

4. Was the jury properly instructed; and 5. Did the court lawfully impose various fines.

We have reviewed the entire record in accordance with Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738 and have not found any reasonably arguable appellate issues. Competent counsel has represented Bentley on this appeal.

2 People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118. 3 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

McDONALD, J.

McINTYRE, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12
People v. Marsden Crim. 14119 · 1970-02-26