P. v. Ledgering CA4/1

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T06:53Z · confidence high

The trial court accepted a plea bargain in which the defendant pled guilty to three counts of driving a stolen vehicle and three counts of receiving stolen property, resulting in a prison sentence of two years and eight months. 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
Judgment of conviction and sentence following a guilty plea “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 arguable appellate issue.”	de novo	not reached	agree with court The court did not review specific trial court rulings for error because appointed counsel filed a Wende brief identifying no issues, and the court's independent review of the record found no reasonably arguable errors. The judgment was affirmed based on the absence of identified or discoverable error.

Authorities

• 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 issues are identified, and for the court to affirm if no reasonably arguable issues are found.
• relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to file a brief identifying no meritorious issues while still providing notice to the defendant and allowing the court to review the record.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the Wende/Anders framework for reviewing a case where appointed counsel identifies no issues. The court explicitly states it conducted the required independent review and found no error, which is the standard disposition for such cases.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

Report

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:31Z · confidence low

Defendant pled guilty to three counts of unlawfully driving a vehicle (Veh. Code § 10851, subd. (a)) and three counts of receiving a stolen motor vehicle (Pen. Code § 496d), and the trial court, per the plea bargain, denied probation and imposed a split sentence of two years eight months under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (h), with fees, fines, restitution, and custody credits later corrected to 156 days. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief raising no issues, defendant 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
Judgment of conviction and sentence entered on guilty plea (denial of probation, split sentence under Pen. Code § 1170, subd. (h), fees, fines, restitution, and custody credits) “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 arguable appellate issue.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The opinion is a standard Wende review: counsel identified no issues, the defendant filed no supplemental brief, and the court conducted an independent record review. The sentence was imposed in accordance with the plea bargain, custody credits were corrected below, and nothing in the opinion suggests an unauthorized sentence or other error. The procedure followed matches Wende and Kelly, and there is no basis in the opinion to identify any legal 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 before affirming.
• relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal 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, and the court must then examine the record.
• relied: People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 — In a Wende appeal the Court of Appeal's opinion should set out a brief description of the facts and procedural history, the crimes of which the defendant was convicted, and the punishment imposed, and should state that it has reviewed the record and found no arguable issue; the opinion here follows this format though it does not cite Kelly.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly follows the Wende/Anders procedure: it recites the facts and procedural history, notes counsel raised no issues and defendant filed no supplemental brief, confirms independent review of the record, and affirms. The result is defensible on the record described, though the opinion is brief and does not cite People v. Kelly or discuss the scope of review on a guilty-plea appeal (e.g., certificate of probable cause limits).

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Report