P. v. Moore CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D062068 · 2013-05-17 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD237133
Trial judge: Dwayne K. Moring
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: O'Rourke (author), Alex C. McDonald, Judith L. Haller

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T06:54Z · confidence high

The trial court accepted Moore's guilty plea to burglary and receiving stolen property, sentencing him to four years and eight months in county jail and ordering restitution. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after conducting an independent review of the record under People v. Wende and finding no reasonably arguable errors.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Affirmance of the judgment following a Wende review of the record for potential errors in custody credits, section 654 application, ineffective assistance of counsel, and restitution. “Our review of the entire record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issues referred to by appellate counsel and the circumstances surrounding the court's taking of the plea, 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 found no arguable issues. The court determined that none of the potential issues raised by counsel (custody credits, section 654, ineffective assistance, restitution) were reasonably arguable, leading to an affirmance.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appellate counsel to conduct an independent review of the record to identify potentially arguable issues when no issues are raised by the defendant.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to file a brief identifying potential errors while arguing that no arguable issues exist, requiring court review.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the Wende/Anders framework for reviewing cases where appointed counsel finds no arguable issues. It explicitly states that the court reviewed the entire record and the specific potential issues identified by counsel, concluding none were reasonably arguable.

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

Moore pleaded guilty to burglary and receiving stolen property under a plea bargain with a four-year-eight-month lid, and a different judge at sentencing declined a split sentence under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (h), imposing four years eight months in county jail plus fines. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief, Moore filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Imposition of a four-year-eight-month county jail sentence without a split sentence under section 1170, subdivision (h), together with fines and restitution, following the guilty plea “At sentencing, a different judge declined to impose a split sentence, and instead sentenced Moore to four years eight months in county jail, and ordered him to pay certain fines.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The opinion is a Wende review; the court states it examined the entire record, including the four Anders issues (section 4019 credits, section 654, ineffective assistance, restitution on a dismissed count) and the plea colloquy, and found no arguable issue. The sentence was within the indicated lid, and the choice whether to impose a split sentence is discretionary. The opinion gives no analysis, so the result cannot be independently verified, but nothing in the opinion suggests error.

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.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Counsel who finds no meritorious issues may file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, triggering independent court review.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion follows the standard Wende/Anders procedure: counsel identified possible issues, the defendant was given a chance to file his own brief and did not, and the court states it reviewed the entire record including the plea proceedings. The opinion contains no substantive analysis of the four flagged issues, which is typical of Wende affirmances but leaves the reader unable to confirm the conclusions from the opinion alone.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 5/17/13 P. v. Moore 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, D062068

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD237133)

GREGORY EUGENE MOORE,

Defendant and Appellant.

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

Neil Auwarter, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala Harris, Attorney General for Plaintiff and Respondent. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION Gregory Eugene Moore pleaded guilty to burglary (Pen. Code,1 § 459; count 1)

and receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a); count 4.) In exchange, the People dismissed counts 2 and 3 for grand theft of personal property (§ 487, subd. (a)), count 5 for receiving a stolen vehicle (§ 496, subd. (d)), and count 6 for burglary (§ 459). The People also declined to amend the complaint to allege a charge of failure to appear.

During plea bargain, the court indicated a sentencing lid of four years eight months, but left open the possibility of imposing a split sentence under section 1170, subdivision (h).

At sentencing, a different judge declined to impose a split sentence, and instead sentenced Moore to four years eight months in county jail, and ordered him to pay certain fines. Moore appeals. We affirm.

Appointed counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below.

Counsel presents no argument for reversal but asks that this court review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel refers to possible but not arguable issues of whether: (1) Moore's custody credits were correctly calculated under section 4019; (2)

the consecutive terms for counts 1 and 4 violated section 654, assuming the claim is cognizable in the absence of a certificate of probable cause; (3) his trial attorney provided ineffective assistance; and (4) he was properly ordered to pay restitution to the victim affected by an underlying count although that count was dismissed.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 We granted Moore permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded. Our review of the entire record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issues referred to by appellate counsel and the circumstances surrounding the court's taking of the plea, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Competent counsel has represented Moore on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

O'ROURKE, J.

WE CONCUR:

HALLER, Acting P. J.

McDONALD, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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