People v. Salceda CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD289047
- Trial judge
- Daniel B. Goldstein
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Judith D. McConnell, Truc T. Do
Analysis
The trial court accepted Salceda's guilty plea to voluntary manslaughter and imposed a sentence including specific presentence custody credits. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after a Wende review, finding no arguable issues for reversal.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Calculation of presentence custody credits“The difficulty with his claim is the trial court was aware of the difference in custody credit calculation. Salceda was advised he received the section 4019 credits to which he was entitled. He did not challenge the calculation of credits in the trial court.” | unclear | not reached | unsure The appellate court did not apply a specific standard of review (such as de novo or abuse of discretion) to the custody credit calculation. Instead, it noted that Salceda failed to challenge the calculation in the trial court and that his argument relied on matters outside the record, effectively treating the issue as waived or procedurally barred rather than analyzing the merits under a defined standard. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to review the record for arguable issues when no issues are identified, and the court to conduct an independent review.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to file a brief identifying potential issues and request permission to withdraw when no arguable issues exist.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound in its application of Wende and Anders, correctly identifying that the appellant's primary arguments were outside the record or waived. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' opinion because it fails to explicitly state the standard of review for the custody credit calculation, relying instead on a procedural waiver argument without citing the specific legal authority for that waiver.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe San Diego Superior Court accepted Salceda's guilty plea to voluntary manslaughter with a personal firearm-use admission, imposed six years plus five years for the enhancement, a $3,300 restitution fine and fees, and awarded 705 days of presentence credit (471 actual, 234 conduct). On appeal, counsel filed a Wende brief, the defendant filed a supplemental brief seeking recalculation of credits and a parole hearing, and the Court of Appeal found no arguable issues and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Calculation of presentence custody credits under section 4019 for a 1988 offense (471 actual plus 234 conduct days)“The difficulty with his claim is the trial court was aware of the difference in custody credit calculation. Salceda was advised he received the section 4019 credits to which he was entitled.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The award of 234 conduct days against 471 actual days is roughly one-for-two (about 50 percent), which matches the pre-1994 version of section 4019 applicable to a 1988 offense rather than the 15 percent cap of section 2933.1 later enacted for violent felonies, so the record described supports the court's conclusion that the trial court applied the more generous historical credit scheme. The court's explanation is brief and does not cite section 1237.1 or walk through the arithmetic, but nothing in the opinion suggests an error in the credit award. |
Judgment of conviction and sentence entered on guilty plea (middle term of six years plus five-year firearm enhancement, restitution fine and fees)“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 defendant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause and expressly did not challenge the plea, conviction, or sentence, so review was confined to post-plea sentencing matters; the court conducted the independent record review Wende and Anders require and the sentence described (middle term plus the firearm enhancement term, standard fees and a restitution fine within the statutory range) shows no facial error. Nothing in the opinion gives a basis to disagree, though the opinion's description of the record is too thin to be certain. |
Defendant's requests that the appellate court direct corrections officials to recalculate credits and provide a parole hearing“He also wants the court to direct prison authorities to provide him with a parole hearing, neither of which would be appropriate actions available to the court on this appeal.” | unclear | not reached | agree with court These requests concern post-judgment conduct of prison authorities and matters outside the appellate record; an appeal from the judgment reviews trial court rulings on the record, so the court correctly declined to treat them as appellate issues and such relief would have to be sought by habeas corpus or administrative remedies. The court's handling is consistent with the limited scope of a direct appeal. |
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 wholly frivolous may so advise the court and identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, after which the court reviews the record itself.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the Wende/Anders procedure, addresses the defendant's supplemental contentions, and reaches a defensible result because the credit award on its face matches the pre-1994 section 4019 formula for a 1988 offense. It is conclusory on the credit issue, does not cite section 1237.1 or explain the arithmetic, and does not cite People v. Kelly regarding its duty to address supplemental brief contentions, though it did in substance comply.
Opinion
Filed 3/17/23 P. v. Salceda 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, D080648
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD289047)
LEOVARDO SALCEDA,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Daniel B. Goldstein, Judge. Affirmed. Leovardo Salceda, in pro. per.; and Thien Huong Tran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. This appeal is from a conviction following a guilty plea. Appellant’s request for a certificate of probable cause (Pen. Code,1 § 1237.5) was denied.
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Leovardo Salceda pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter (§ 192, subd. (a)) and admitted personal use of a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (b)). Salceda was sentenced to the middle term of six years for manslaughter plus five years for the firearm enhancement. The court imposed a restitution fine of $3,300 (§ 1202.4(b)). The court also imposed a $40 court security fee and a $30 criminal conviction fee. Salceda was awarded 471 actual days and 234 conduct days for a total of 705 days of custody credits. Salceda 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 Salceda the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal. He has responded by filing a lengthy supplemental brief. We will address Salceda’s brief later in this opinion. 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 which was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Whether Salceda’s presentence custody credits were properly calculated. Salceda’s supplemental brief is focused primarily on matters outside the record of this appeal. As we discuss his brief, we first point out this appeal is from the judgment imposed following his plea. Salceda does not challenge his plea and does not want to challenge his conviction or sentence.
2 At base, Salceda wants the court to direct corrections officials to change the calculation of his presentence custody credit. He also wants the court to direct prison authorities to provide him with a parole hearing, neither of which would be appropriate actions available to the court on this appeal. Salceda’s only record based challenge is to the calculation of custody credits. He claims he was entitled to credits under section 4019 since the crime was committed in 1988, before more restrictive credits were applicable. The difficulty with his claim is the trial court was aware of the difference in custody credit calculation. Salceda was advised he received the section 4019 credits to which he was entitled. He did not challenge the calculation of credits in the trial court. In short, Salceda’s written submission does not raise any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Salceda was represented by competent counsel on this appeal. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
DO, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12