People v. Mourning CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D079849 · 2022-12-27 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD291199
Trial judge: Robert J. Trentacosta
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Joan K. Irion, Buchanan

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:40Z · confidence low

The trial court accepted a guilty plea to felony vandalism and sentenced the defendant to two years with probation, which was later revoked. The appellate court affirmed the judgment after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende and finding no arguable issues for reversal.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Affirmance of judgment following 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 Wende review, examining the record for any arguable issues. The opinion states that no such issues were found, leading to an affirmance. This is the standard procedure for appointed counsel appeals where no issues are identified.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to file a brief identifying arguable issues or, if none exist, to request the court to independently review the record for error.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the federal constitutional standard for appointed counsel in criminal appeals, requiring a brief identifying arguable issues and notice to the defendant.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly identifies the Wende/Anders framework and states that the court performed the required independent review. However, it is extremely brief and does not detail the specific findings from that review, which is typical for unpublished Wende affirmances but limits the ability to verify the thoroughness of the analysis.

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

In San Diego Superior Court case No. SCD291199, the trial court accepted Jeffery Mourning's guilty plea to felony vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594), imposed the stipulated middle term of two years with execution suspended and probation granted, and later revoked probation after Mourning pleaded guilty to felony vandalism in a second case. On appeal, counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief identifying no arguable issues, Mourning filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed the judgment.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Acceptance of the guilty plea to felony vandalism (factual basis for the plea and advisement of rights before the plea) “1. Whether there was a factual basis for the guilty plea. 2. Whether Mourning was properly advised of his rights before pleading guilty.”	unclear	correct	unsure The court conducted the independent record review required by Wende and Anders and found no arguable issue concerning the factual basis or advisements. The opinion omits any statement of facts and does not disclose the plea colloquy or whether a certificate of probable cause under section 1237.5 was obtained, so there is nothing in the opinion from which to confirm or dispute the conclusion beyond the court's representation that it reviewed the entire record.
Revocation of probation based on Mourning's admission/guilty plea in the second case (No. SCD293812) “Mourning’s probation was revoked when he pleaded guilty to felony vandalism in San Diego Superior Court case No. SCD293812.”	unclear	correct	unsure A guilty plea to a new felony while on probation is a sufficient basis for revocation, and counsel flagged whether the admission complied with applicable standards; the court found no arguable issue after Wende review. The opinion provides no details of the revocation proceeding, so the conclusion cannot be independently verified from the opinion itself.
Imposition of the stipulated middle term of two years for felony vandalism, execution suspended with probation “The parties stipulated that Mourning would be sentenced to the middle term of two years, with the execution of sentence suspended with a grant of probation.”	unclear	correct	agree with court Felony vandalism under section 594 is punishable by a term of 16 months, two, or three years, so a stipulated middle term of two years is an authorized sentence, and a defendant who receives the sentence bargained for generally cannot challenge it. The court's conclusion that the sentence raised no arguable issue is consistent with the terms of the plea agreement described in the opinion.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel files a brief identifying no arguable issues, the Court of Appeal must independently review the entire record for arguable issues before affirming.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous must so advise the court and refer to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, which counsel did here by listing four possible issues.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion follows the standard Wende/Anders procedure: it describes counsel's brief and the issues counsel considered, notes the defendant was invited to file a supplemental brief and did not, and states the court reviewed the entire record. It omits any facts, any discussion of a certificate of probable cause for the plea-related issues, and any explanation of why the identified issues lack merit, which is permissible in a Wende affirmance but leaves nothing to evaluate substantively.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 12/27/22 P. v. Mourning 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, D079849

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD291199)

JEFFEREY MOURNING,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Robert J. Trentacosta, Judge. Affirmed. Justin Behravesh, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. This is the first of two separate criminal cases which were resolved by guilty pleas in the trial court. They have not been consolidated on appeal; accordingly, we will resolve each case separately. In San Diego Superior Court case No. SCD291199, Jeffery Mourning pleaded guilty to felony vandalism (Pen. Code,1 § 594, subd. (a)(b)(1)). The parties stipulated that Mourning would be sentenced to the middle term of two years, with the execution of sentence suspended with a grant of probation. Mourning was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement. Mourning’s probation was revoked when he pleaded guilty to felony vandalism in San Diego Superior Court case No. SCD293812. Mourning filed a timely notice of appeal. 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 this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Mourning the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. This conviction is from a guilty plea without an evidentiary hearing. Thus, we will omit a statement of facts. 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 possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal. 1. Whether there was a factual basis for the guilty plea. 2. Whether Mourning was properly advised of his rights before pleading guilty.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 3. Whether Mourning’s admission to violating the terms of his probation complied with the applicable standards. 4. Whether the sentence imposed was authorized. 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 Mourning on this appeal. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

IRION, J.

BUCHANAN, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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