People v. Lacroix CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D080497 · 2022-12-09 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCE402172, SCE403469
Trial judge: John M. Thompson
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Judith D. McConnell, Joan K. Irion

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:41Z · confidence high

The trial court accepted Lacroix's guilty pleas to evading a peace officer, selling drugs to a minor, and unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, and sentenced him to 12 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 arguable issues for reversal.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Affirmance of the judgment following a Wende review “We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.”	de novo	not reached	agree with court The court applied the standard of review for a Wende appeal, which requires the appellate court to independently review the record for arguable issues. The court found no such issues, leading to affirmance.
Rejection of the defendant's pro per brief “It does not raise any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.”	de novo	not reached	agree with court The court reviewed the defendant's pro per brief and determined it did not raise any arguable issues for reversal, consistent with the Wende standard.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appellate counsel to file a brief identifying arguable issues and the court to independently review the record if no issues are found.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires independent review of the record by the appellate court when counsel files a Wende brief.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the Wende/Anders framework for reviewing a guilty plea appeal where counsel finds no arguable issues. The court explicitly states it reviewed the entire record and the defendant's pro per brief, fulfilling its duty to ensure no arguable issues were overlooked.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:30Z · confidence low

The trial court accepted Lacroix's guilty pleas in two cases (evading with reckless driving, furnishing a controlled substance to a minor, unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, with an admitted strike), imposed the stipulated 12-year-8-month sentence, and imposed fees including a Health and Safety Code section 11372.7 drug program fee and 'the normal fees and costs.' On appeal without a certificate of probable cause, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief, Lacroix filed a pro per 'jurisdictional challenge' brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Entry of judgment on the guilty pleas with the stipulated sentence of 12 years and eight months (reviewed only through Wende independent review; no certificate of probable cause obtained) “We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.”	unclear	correct	agree with court Without a certificate of probable cause under section 1237.5, challenges to the validity of the plea or to a stipulated sentence are not cognizable (People v. Panizzon), so the appeal is confined to post-plea matters; nothing in the opinion suggests any defect in the plea or sentence, and the stipulated term was imposed as agreed.
Proceeding with sentencing after Lacroix expressed confusion and concern about the hearing “Whether the court erred in moving forward with sentencing after”	unclear	correct	unsure The court identified this as an Anders issue and found it not arguable, but the opinion recites nothing about what Lacroix said or how the trial court responded, so the record as presented does not allow independent verification; a defendant's generalized confusion about a stipulated sentence rarely supports reversal, but I cannot confirm that here.
Finding of ability to pay the drug program fee under Health and Safety Code section 11372.7, and whether any challenge was forfeited by failure to object “Whether the trial court properly found Lacroix had the ability to pay”	unclear	correct	unsure Section 11372.7 requires an ability-to-pay determination, which may be implied from the record, and an unobjected-to fee finding is generally forfeited; the opinion gives no facts about the finding or any objection, so the conclusion is plausible but unverifiable from the opinion.
Imposition of 'the normal fees and costs' without orally identifying each fine, fee, and penalty “rather than identifying each fine, fee, and penalty imposed, was error that”	unclear	correct	unsure Courts of Appeal have held that fines, fees and penalty assessments must be separately set out at least in the abstract of judgment; the opinion does not state whether the abstract or minutes itemized the amounts, so one cannot tell from the opinion whether a correction should have been ordered, though a shorthand oral pronouncement is not itself reversible error.
Rejection of Lacroix's pro per 'Jurisdictional challenge to the constitutionality of unlawful statutes' filed in the trial court and refiled as his supplemental appellate brief “It does not raise any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.”	unclear	correct	agree with court Generic 'jurisdictional' attacks on the constitutionality of criminal statutes prepared by nonlawyers are routinely frivolous, and any attack on the validity of the plea is barred absent a certificate of probable cause; the result is right, but the opinion's one-sentence treatment of the supplemental brief is thinner than the explanation People v. Kelly contemplates.

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 an appeal lacking in merit should identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal to assist the court's review.
missed: People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 — When a defendant files a supplemental brief in a Wende appeal, the Court of Appeal's opinion should set out the contentions raised and briefly explain why they fail; the opinion here does not cite Kelly and disposes of the pro per brief in a single conclusory sentence.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court applied the correct Wende/Anders framework, considered the three issues counsel flagged, and reached the defensible result of affirmance given the stipulated sentence and absence of a certificate of probable cause. It did not cite People v. Kelly or explain, beyond a single sentence, why the defendant's supplemental brief fails, and it gave no detail on the fee issues that would allow a reader to confirm no abstract correction was needed.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 12/9/22 P. v. Lacroix 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, D080497

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. Nos. SCE402172, SCE403469) DYLAN RIVERS LACROIX, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, John M. Thompson, Judge. Affirmed. Dylan Rivers Lacroix, in pro. per.; and Pauline E. Villanueva, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Dylan Rivers Lacroix pleaded guilty to crimes in two separate cases. He stipulated to a sentence of 12 years and eight months as part of the plea agreement. After sentencing, Lacroix filed a timely notice of appeal but did not obtain a certificate of probable cause (Pen. Code,1 § 1237.5). Specifically, Lacroix pleaded guilty as follows: Case No. SCE402172 Evading a peace officer with reckless driving (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)). Case No. SCE403469 Selling or furnishing a controlled substance to a minor (Health and Saf. Code, § 11353, subd. (c)) and unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor (§ 261.5, subd. (c)). Lacroix also admitted to a prior strike (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)). Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), indicating counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Lacroix the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal. He has responded with a lengthy brief entitled, “Jurisdictional challenge to the constitutionality of unlawful statutes.” It appears to be the same document that was filed in the trial court by a nonlawyer on Lacroix’s behalf. We have reviewed the document. It does not raise any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. STATEMENT OF FACTS In his change of plea, Lacroix admitted he furnished a controlled substance to a minor who was 17 years old. He had intercourse with a minor three years younger than him, and he evaded a police officer with reckless 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. 2 driving while pursued by an officer who was operating a vehicle with siren and lights operating. DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to review the record for error. To assist the court in its review, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified the following possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: 1. Whether the court erred in moving forward with sentencing after Lacroix expressed confusion and concern regarding the sentencing hearing. 2. Whether the trial court properly found Lacroix had the ability to pay the drug program fee under Health and Safety Code section 11372.7 and whether any such challenge was forfeited by trial counsel’s failure to object. 3. Whether the trial court’s imposition of “the normal fees and costs” rather than identifying each fine, fee, and penalty imposed, was error that deprived Lacroix of proper notice and fairness. We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Lacroix on this appeal.

3 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

IRION, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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