P. v. Oliver CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D062282 · 2013-05-13 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCN298510
Trial judge: Daniel B. Goldstein
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Joan K. Irion (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 accepted Anthony Oliver's guilty plea to attempted criminal threats and sentenced him to an eight-month prison term, which was satisfied by reporting to probation due to credits for time served. On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after conducting 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
Affirmance of judgment following guilty plea “A review of the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the issues suggested by counsel, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue.”	de novo	correct	agree with court The court applied the standard Wende/Anders review, which requires an independent examination of the record to ensure the defendant received adequate representation and that no reasonably arguable issues exist. The court identified the specific issues raised by counsel (voluntariness of plea, Marsden motion denial, and certificate of probable cause grounds) and concluded none were reasonably arguable. This is the correct procedural posture for an appeal where appointed counsel files a Wende brief. The court's conclusion is supported by the procedural history and the lack of a supplemental brief from the defendant.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to file a brief identifying any potentially arguable issues and invites the court to independently review the record if no issues are identified.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to withdraw from an appeal by filing a brief identifying potentially arguable issues and requesting the court to review the record.
relied: People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 — Establishes the standard for granting a motion to substitute appointed counsel, requiring a showing of conflict or inability to work together.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for reviewing a case where appointed counsel found no arguable issues. The court explicitly states it reviewed the entire record and the specific issues identified by counsel, satisfying the constitutional requirements for effective assistance of appellate counsel 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 denied Oliver's second Marsden motion for substitute appointed counsel, accepted his guilty plea to attempted criminal threats (Pen. Code, §§ 422, 664), sentenced him to eight months concurrent with a parole violation, and issued a certificate of probable cause. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief, Oliver 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
Acceptance of guilty plea to attempted criminal threats as knowing, intelligent and voluntary “Oliver then pled guilty to one count of attempted criminal threats. (§§ 422, 664.)”	unclear	correct	agree with court The court conducted the independent Wende/Anders record review and found no arguable issue regarding the plea; the opinion notes the preliminary hearing transcript supplied the factual basis, which is consistent with a valid plea. The opinion gives no detail about the plea colloquy, so the conclusion cannot be independently verified, but nothing in the opinion suggests error.
Denial of second Marsden motion for substitute appointed counsel “the trial court abused its discretion in denying the second Marsden motion; and”	abuse of discretion	correct	agree with court Counsel identified the Marsden denial as a possible issue reviewed for abuse of discretion, and the court found it not reasonably arguable after reviewing the record. The opinion does not describe the substance of the Marsden hearing, so there is no basis in the opinion to disagree, though the result rests on the court's unstated record review.
Issues raised in Oliver's pro se request for certificate of probable cause “request for a certificate of probable cause are supported by the record.”	unclear	correct	unsure The court reviewed whether any potential bases listed in the certificate request were supported by the record and found none arguable. The opinion does not identify what those bases were, so the reader cannot assess them independently; the disposition is consistent with standard Wende practice.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel files a brief raising no arguable issues, the Court of Appeal must independently review the entire record for arguable error.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds no meritorious issues may so advise the court and identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, after which the court conducts its own review.
relied: People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 — When a defendant seeks to discharge appointed counsel and substitute another attorney, the trial court must hold a hearing allowing the defendant to state the reasons for dissatisfaction.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion follows the required Wende/Anders procedure, states the procedural history and the possible issues identified by counsel, notes the defendant declined to file a supplemental brief, and reports an independent review disclosing no arguable issue. It provides no analysis of the Marsden denial or plea colloquy, which is typical for a Wende affirmance but leaves the reader unable to verify the conclusions from the opinion alone.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 5/13/13 P. v. Oliver 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, D062282

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN298510)

ANTHONY OLIVER,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Daniel B.

Goldstein , Judge. Affirmed.

Caroline R. Hahn, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance by Respondent.

Anthony Oliver appeals the judgment following his guilty plea. Appointed appellate counsel filed a brief presenting no argument for reversal, but inviting this court to review the record for error in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Oliver did not respond to our invitation to file a supplemental brief. After having independently reviewed the entire record for error as required by Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) and Wende, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In November 2011, an information was filed against Oliver, charging him with making a criminal threat (Pen. Code, § 422)1 and further alleging probation denial priors.

On February 14, 2012, Oliver asked to relieve the public defender's office and to represent himself. The trial court held a hearing pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 and granted the request. On February 28, Oliver withdrew his request to represent himself and asked for appointed counsel. The trial court appointed the alternate public defender's office to represent Oliver. On April 2, Oliver requested a Marsden hearing and asked for a different appointed attorney. The trial court held a Marsden hearing and denied the request.

Oliver then pled guilty to one count of attempted criminal threats. (§§ 422, 664.)

The trial court sentenced Oliver to an eight-month prison term concurrent to his parole violation. Based on Oliver's credits for time already served, he was ordered to report to the probation department rather than to prison.

According to the preliminary hearing transcript, which formed the factual basis for Oliver's guilty plea, Oliver attempted to make a criminal threat to a California Highway 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 Patrol officer on July 2, 2011, by making telephone calls to the officer's home. During the phone calls, Oliver was heard saying to someone in the background, "Load the magazine. We're on our way over." He stated directly to the officer, "I'm coming over and putting a bullet in your head."

Based on Oliver's request, filed pro se, the trial court issued a certificate of probable cause for Oliver to pursue an appeal.

DISCUSSION

Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings in the trial court. Counsel presented no argument for reversal but invited this court to review the record for error in accordance with Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.

Pursuant to Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, counsel identified as possible but not arguable issues: (1) whether the guilty plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary; (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the second Marsden motion; and (3) whether any of the potential bases for reversal of the judgment listed in Oliver's request for a certificate of probable cause are supported by the record. After we received counsel's brief, we gave Oliver an opportunity to file a supplemental brief, but he did not respond.

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

3 DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

IRION, J.

WE CONCUR:

MCCONNELL, P. J.

NARES, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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