P. v. Sindelar CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D063001 · 2013-05-29 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD237962
Trial judge: Theodore M. Weathers
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Patricia D. Benke (author), Judith D. McConnell, Cynthia Aaron

Analysis

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

The trial court accepted defendant's guilty plea to two counts of DUI with prior convictions, admitted a Three Strikes prior, and sentenced her to 40 months in prison. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende found no reasonably arguable issues of error.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Affirmance of the judgment following a Wende/Anders review “Our review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issues listed pursuant to Anders v. California, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues.”	de novo	not reached	agree with court The court conducted an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende and found no reasonably arguable issues. The court noted that the record amply supports the conviction and that the defendant waived her right to appeal. The court affirmed the judgment.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to conduct an independent review of the record to identify any reasonably arguable issues of error when no issues are presented by the defendant.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to file a brief identifying possible but not arguable issues and to seek leave to withdraw after the court has independently reviewed the record.
relied: People v. Arbuckle (1978) 22 Cal.3d 749 — Holds that a defendant has a right to be sentenced by the judge who accepted the plea, but this right may be waived.

The appellate opinion: sound — The court applied the correct standard of review under People v. Wende and Anders v. California. The court's independent review of the record found no reasonably arguable issues, and the defendant's waiver of the right to appeal further supported affirmance.

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

Following a guilty plea to two counts of driving under the influence with three or more prior DUI convictions and an admission of a strike prior, the trial court sentenced Sindelar to 40 months in prison, awarded 588 days of credits, and imposed fines and fees. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief, the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no reasonably arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Judgment entered on guilty plea and 40-month sentence (including denial of Penal Code section 995 motion, denial of Romero-type motion to strike the prior, credit calculation, and sentencing by a different judge), reviewed under Wende/Anders independent record review “Our review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issues listed pursuant to Anders v. California, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The court conducted the independent review required by Wende and Anders, considered the eight potential issues flagged by counsel, and noted that the record supported the conviction and that Sindelar waived her right to appeal at the time of the plea. The opinion recites no record facts that would allow a reader to identify any specific error, and the Wende procedure was followed (counsel's brief, notice to defendant, no supplemental brief). Nothing in the opinion suggests an error of law.

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 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous may so advise the court and request to withdraw, accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
relied: People v. Arbuckle (1978) 22 Cal.3d 749 — A defendant who enters a plea bargain before a particular judge has a right, absent waiver, to be sentenced by that same judge.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion applies the correct Wende/Anders procedure, lists the potential issues identified by counsel, confirms the defendant was given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief, and states the conclusions of its independent review. Because it is a short Wende affirmance, it does not explain the record basis for rejecting each listed issue, but that is customary and the result is defensible on the face of the opinion.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 5/29/13 P. v. Sindelar 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 APPEA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D063001

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD237962)

KRISTI KING SINDELAR,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Theodore M. Weathers, Judge. Affirmed.

Leslie A. Rose, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant Kristi King Sindelar pled guilty to two counts driving under the influence of alcohol/drugs with three or more prior DUI convictions. (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (a).) With respect to one count, she also admitted the truth of an allegation that she had a three strike prior within the meaning of Penal Code section 667, subdivisions (b) through (i). The trial court sentenced Sindelar to 40 months in prison, awarded her a total of 588 days of actual and Penal Code section 4019 credits, and imposed various fines and fees.

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. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel lists as possible, but not arguable, issues:

1) Whether the trial court erred in denying Sindelar's motion to dismiss under Penal Code section 995;

2) Whether Sindelar properly waived her right to appeal;

3) Whether Sindelar's plea was valid;

4) Whether there was a sufficient factual basis for Sindelar's plea;

5) Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Sindelar's motion to dismiss the three strike prior;

6) Notwithstanding Sindelar's waiver of her right to be sentenced by the judge who took her plea (see People v. Arbuckle (1978) 22 Cal.3d 749, 756-757), was a sentence imposed by a different judge proper;

7) Were Sindelar's custody credits calculated correctly; and 8) Did Sindelar's trial counsel provide effective assistance.

We granted Sindelar permission to file a brief on her own behalf. She has not responded. Our review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, 2 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issues listed pursuant to Anders v. California, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues.

In this regard, we note that the record amply supports her conviction, and at the time Sindelar entered her plea, she waived her right to appeal.

We find that Sindelar was adequately represented both at trial and on appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

BENKE, J.

WE CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

AARON, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12
People v. Arbuckle Crim. 20002 · 1978-12-12