People v. Rivera CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D080362 · 2023-01-24 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCE406635, SCE409105
Trial judge: Robert O. Amador
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Judith D. McConnell, O'Rourke

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:39Z · confidence low

The trial court denied defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty pleas and sentenced him to 13 years in prison. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea “Whether the trial court erred in denying Rivera’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The appellate court identified the issue as a potential arguable error but concluded after independent review that no arguable issues for reversal existed, thereby affirming the judgment without explicitly analyzing the merits of the withdrawal motion.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appellate counsel to file a brief identifying arguable issues and the court to conduct an independent review of the record when counsel finds no arguable issues.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed appellate counsel to withdraw from representation by filing a brief identifying arguable issues and requesting the court to review the record.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for reviewing a case where counsel identifies no arguable issues. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' opinion because it fails to provide any substantive legal analysis or reasoning for why the identified issue (withdrawal of plea) was not arguable, relying solely on the conclusion of the independent review.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition unusual disposition

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

The trial court accepted Rivera's guilty pleas to kidnapping and assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury (with a great bodily injury enhancement and strike prior), denied his motion to withdraw the pleas, and sentenced him to the agreed 13-year term. On appeal, counsel filed a Wende brief, Rivera filed nothing, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of Rivera's motion to withdraw his guilty plea (identified by counsel as a possible Anders issue) “Whether the trial court erred in denying Rivera’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The court conducted independent Wende/Anders review and found no arguable issue. It did not state a standard of review or explain its reasoning. Notably, Rivera obtained no certificate of probable cause under section 1237.5; under People v. Johnson (2009) 47 Cal.4th 668, a challenge to the denial of a motion to withdraw a plea attacks the validity of the plea and is not cognizable without a certificate, so the issue could not have produced reversal in any event. The opinion does not say this, but the result is correct.
Acceptance of guilty pleas and imposition of the stipulated 13-year sentence “Rivera was sentenced to a total prison term of 13 years, consistent with the plea agreement.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The sentence matched the plea bargain, and absent a certificate of probable cause only post-plea issues not affecting plea validity are reviewable. The opinion recites that the record was reviewed in full and nothing arguable was found; nothing in the opinion suggests otherwise, but the opinion gives almost no detail to verify.

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 frivolous should file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
missed: People v. Johnson (2009) 47 Cal.4th 668 — A challenge to the denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea is an attack on the validity of the plea and is not cognizable on appeal without a certificate of probable cause under section 1237.5.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the Wende/Anders procedure correctly and the affirmance is plainly right, since the only identified issue was barred by the absence of a certificate of probable cause. It nonetheless omits any discussion of why the plea-withdrawal issue is not arguable, including the section 1237.5 bar recognized in People v. Johnson, and provides almost no factual or procedural detail.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 1/24/23 P. v. Rivera 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, D080362

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. Nos. SCE406635, SCE409105) NOE GASTON RIVERA, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Robert O. Amador, Judge. Affirmed. Jeffrey Manning-Cartwright, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. This appeal is from convictions in two different cases which were resolved as part of a plea agreement and sentenced in a single judgment. In case No. SCE409105, Noe Gaston Rivera pleaded guilty to kidnapping (Pen. Code,1 § 207, subd. (a)). In case No. SCE406635, Rivera 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. pleaded guilty to one count of assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)). Rivera admitted the personal infliction of great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). He admitted a strike prior (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)). Rivera made a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which request was denied by the trial court. Rivera was sentenced to a total prison term of 13 years, consistent with the plea agreement. Rivera filed timely notices of appeal in each case. He did not obtain a certificate of probable cause (§ 1237.5). 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 Rivera the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. STATEMENT OF FACTS The guilty pleas did not follow an evidentiary hearing. In his change of plea, Rivera admitted he committed the elements of each offense. 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 a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Whether the trial court erred in denying Rivera’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

2 We have reviewed the entire record as mandated by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Rivera on this appeal. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

O’ROURKE, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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