People v. Commandor CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCS312012
- Trial judge
- Enrique E. Camarena
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), O'Rourke, Truc T. Do
Analysis
The trial court denied the defendant's motion to strike his prior serious felony conviction and sentenced him to seven years in prison. The appellate court 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of motion to strike prior serious felony conviction“Whether the court abused its discretion in denying Commandor’s motion to strike his “strike” prior.” | abuse of discretion | not reached | unsure The appellate court identified the issue as one of potential merit but concluded, after independent review, that it did not present an arguable issue for reversal. The opinion does not provide specific reasoning for why the trial court's decision was correct, relying instead on the Wende/Anders framework to affirm the judgment. |
Denial of motion for mistrial“Whether the court abused its discretion in denying Commandor’s motion for mistrial.” | abuse of discretion | not reached | unsure The court listed this as a potential issue considered by counsel but ultimately found no arguable issues for reversal in the entire record. No specific analysis of the mistrial motion is provided in the opinion. |
Granting of prosecution's motion to strike post-Miranda statements“Whether the court abused its discretion in granting the prosecution’s motion to strike Commandor’s post-Miranda statements.” | abuse of discretion | not reached | unsure This issue was identified by counsel as a potential ground for appeal. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no arguable issues for reversal, implying the trial court's ruling was not reversible error, but no specific legal analysis is offered. |
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 for error when counsel finds no issues.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel who believes an appeal is frivolous, requiring a brief identifying potential issues and court review.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is a standard Wende/Anders review where the court affirms the judgment without addressing the specific merits of the issues identified by counsel. It relies on the procedural framework of Wende and Anders to justify the affirmance based on the court's independent review finding no arguable errors.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionA San Diego jury convicted Brian Commandor of importing and possessing for sale roughly 4.4 kilograms of methamphetamine concealed in his wheelchair pillow; he admitted a strike prior, the trial court denied his motion to strike it, and sentenced him to seven years. On appeal counsel filed a Wende brief identifying three possible issues, Commandor filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of Commandor's motion to strike his prior strike conviction (Romero motion) and imposition of a seven-year determinate sentence“Commandor’s motion to strike the prior was denied and he was sentenced to a determinate term of seven years in prison.” | abuse of discretion | correct | unsure Counsel framed the issue as abuse of discretion and the court, after independent Wende review, found no arguable issue. The opinion gives no description of the trial court's reasons or the factors weighed, so the reader cannot independently test the conclusion; the result is plausible given a second border smuggling offense of the same kind, but the opinion itself supplies no analysis. |
Denial of defense motion for mistrial“1. Whether the court abused its discretion in denying Commandor’s motion for mistrial.” | abuse of discretion | correct | unsure The opinion identifies this only as an Anders issue counsel considered and states no facts about the basis for the mistrial motion. The court's implicit conclusion that it is not arguable cannot be evaluated from the opinion alone. |
Granting the prosecution's motion to strike Commandor's post-Miranda statements“3. Whether the court abused its discretion in granting the prosecution’s motion to strike Commandor’s post-Miranda statements.” | abuse of discretion | correct | unsure The opinion does not describe the statements, the ground for striking them, or any prejudice. Exclusion of a defendant's own self-serving post-Miranda statements offered by the defense is commonly upheld as hearsay, but nothing in the opinion permits verification. |
Judgment of conviction as a whole, reviewed under Wende/Anders independent record review“We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The court followed the Wende procedure: counsel filed a no-issues brief with Anders issues, the defendant was invited to file a supplemental brief and did not, and the court conducted an independent review of the record. The summarized evidence (K-9 alert, 11 packages of methamphetamine in the pillow, stipulated lab weight, expert testimony, and a 2016 prior incident with the same method) amply supports the convictions, so affirmance is consistent with the procedure and the record described. |
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 issues before affirming.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal frivolous must file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, and the defendant must be given an opportunity to raise points.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion follows the standard Wende/Anders procedure correctly: it adopts counsel's summary of the facts, notes the defendant declined to file a supplemental brief, lists the Anders issues, and states the court reviewed the whole record and found nothing arguable. It is formulaic and provides no analysis of the three identified issues, but that is customary for a Wende affirmance and the described evidence strongly supports the convictions.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
record incompleteOpinion
Filed 1/27/23 P. v. Commandor 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, D080232
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCS312012)
BRIAN COMMANDOR,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Enrique E. Camarena, Judge. Affirmed. Elisabeth A. Bowman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. A jury convicted Brian Commandor of importation of a controlled substance (Health and Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)) and of possession for sale of a controlled substance (Health and Saf. Code, § 11378). Commandor admitted a strike prior (Pen. Code, § 667, subds. (b)-(i)). Commandor’s motion to strike the prior was denied and he was sentenced to a determinate term of seven years in prison. Commandor 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 the court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Commandor the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. STATEMENT OF FACTS Appellate counsel has set forth an accurate summary of the evidence in the opening brief. We will adopt that statement of facts in this opinion for convenience. Officer Jose Guerrero has been with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection for almost 10 years and is currently a supervisor at the K-9 unit. Guerrero was a K-9 officer for six years. On November 27, 2019, at approximately 8:30 p.m., Guerrero was on duty as a K-9 officer with Customs and Border Protection at the San Ysidro Port of Entry pedestrian lane in San Diego County. He was working with the K-9 named Maca. While he was working, Guerrero interacted with Commandor. As Commandor approached, Maca displayed a change in behavior; her tail started wagging, her respiration increased, she made contact with the wheelchair, put her nose on the pillow, and sat down. That indicated to Guerrero that Maca was as close as possible to narcotics. Guerrero, Maca, and Commandor went into secondary where Guerrero notified the officers that he had an alert to the pillow in the wheelchair. Thereafter, Guerrero had no further contact with Commandor. Officer Christian Fernandez has been a Customs and Border Protection officer at the San Ysidro Port of Entry since January 3, 2018. On November 27, 2019, at about 9:30 p.m., Fernandez was assigned to screen Commandor 2 because Guerrero told him there was a K-9 alert on him. Fernandez took Commandor to secondary to conduct a more thorough inspection of Commandor and his belongings. When Fernandez inspected the pillow on the wheelchair, it was heavier than usual and contained crunchy packages. Fernandez knew immediately that it was methamphetamine. Fernandez moved Commandor to the security office and took the pillow to the seized contraband coordinator. He cut the pillow open with a pair of scissors, removed the packages, weighed the narcotics, and placed a call to Homeland Security Investigations. When Fernandez saw one of the packages of narcotics, it confirmed his belief that it was methamphetamine. There was a total of eleven packages inside the pillow. Fernandez put the packages on the scale to determine their total weight which was 5.86 kilograms. Fernandez arrested Commandor for transportation of narcotics, a controlled substance, into the United States. Officer Christopher Cabugos has been an officer with Customs and Border Protection at the San Ysidro Port of Entry for almost eight years; he facilitates the traffic in and out of San Ysidro. On November 27, 2019, Cabugos was a lead for SCC (Seized Contraband Facility) where they do the drug testing. Fernandez had a package for Cabugos to test. He was given a random package from the inside of the pillow to test; it tested positive for methamphetamine. Special Agent Gary Roy has worked with Homeland Security Investigations for about three and a half years. He is assigned to the contraband smuggling group. Roy received a call from dispatch on November 27, 2019, regarding a drug seizure at the San Ysidro Port of Entry. Roy responded to the call, arriving close to midnight, and contacted Commandor. During Roy’s testimony, the prosecution asked him to opine on two 3 hypotheticals which tracked the facts of this case. Roy opined that the subject of the hypotheticals was involved in smuggling methamphetamine/illegal narcotics into the United States for sales. Roy has no specific knowledge as to what Commandor was paid. No cell phone information was recovered as part of the investigation. Stipulation of the Parties The 11 packages seized from the defendant’s wheelchair by Officer Fernandez were sent to the D.E.A. southwest laboratory where they were properly tested and weighed by a forensic chemist.
The packages were found to contain the following controlled substances in the following quantities: A net weight without any packaging of 4,402 grams plus or minus 1 gram of methamphetamine. It is stipulated that 4, 402 grams is equivalent to 4.402 kilograms.
So stipulated by Katherine Johnson and Dan Tandon.
Prior Offense Officer Jason Salvador Renteria is a Customs and Border Protection officer at the San Ysidro Point of Entry, currently assigned to the contraband enforcement team. He has been with Customs and Border Protection for about nine years and has been with the contraband team for the last couple of years. On September 5, 2016, at about 6:30 p.m., Renteria screened Commandor, who was in a wheelchair with a pillow, at secondary pedestrian inspections because he had no driver’s license or passport—nothing to indicate what his citizenship was. As part of the screening, Renteria conducted a pat-down of Commandor. Renteria felt something that he thought warranted further inspection, so he escorted Commandor to the security office and requested a pat-down inspection, which is a further level of inspection. Renteria cut open the stitching on the pillow and found a 4 package he suspected to be methamphetamine. Renteria tested the contents of the package and it tested positive for methamphetamine. The packaging and its contents weighed 969.8 grams, approximately 2 pounds. Renteria impounded the package of methamphetamine under case No. 2016250400211501. Defense Prior to crossing the border into the United States, Commandor, stayed overnight in a hotel room in Mexico. Commandor kept his wheelchair outside his hotel room. Commandor does not have full feeling in his lower body and buttocks, and he did not feel anything unusual when he sat back down on the pillow in his wheelchair. Commandor was surprised when he was taken to secondary inspection at the border; he had no knowledge whatsoever that there were drugs in the pillow of his wheelchair, no one offered him money to take drugs across the border, he had no cell phone to communicate with anyone regarding the transportation of drugs across the border, and he had no agreement to meet anyone after entering the United States. 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 the court abused its discretion in denying Commandor’s motion for mistrial. 2. Whether the court abused its discretion in denying Commandor’s motion to strike his “strike” prior.
5 3. Whether the court abused its discretion in granting the prosecution’s motion to strike Commandor’s post-Miranda statements. 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 Commandor on this appeal. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
O’ROURKE, J.
DO, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12