People v. Calderon CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D081213 · 2023-03-30 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from an order
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD127067
Trial judge: Jeffrey F. Fraser
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), William S. Dato, Truc T. Do

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:37Z · confidence low

The trial court denied Rogelio Calderon's motion to award additional custody credits under Penal Code section 1170.03. The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial after a Wende review found no arguable issues for reversal.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of motion to recalculate custody credits under Penal Code section 1170.03 “The order denying Calderon’s motion to recalculate custody credits is affirmed.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The appellate court conducted a Wende/Anders review of the record and concluded that no arguable issues for reversal existed, thereby affirming the trial court's order without addressing the specific legal arguments regarding the calculation or finality of the case.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to review the record for error when no arguable issues are identified, and the court to independently review the record.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to file a brief identifying potential issues and request the court to review the record when no arguable issues are found.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for reviewing an appeal where counsel identifies no arguable issues. However, it provides no substantive legal analysis or reasoning for why the trial court's denial of the custody credit motion was correct, relying solely on the negative finding of error.

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 denied Rogelio Calderon's August 2022 motion, brought under former Penal Code section 1170.03, seeking additional custody credits for the January 25, 2007 to September 21, 2012 period for which he had already been awarded 2067 actual days at his 2012 murder sentencing. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief, Calderon filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issue, and affirmed the order.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of defendant's postjudgment motion to recalculate and award additional actual custody credits under former section 1170.03 “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 opinion states only that the court conducted an independent Wende/Anders review and found no arguable issue; it gives no analysis of the two issues counsel flagged (credit calculation and finality under section 1170.03). Nothing in the opinion suggests the trial court erred, and a defendant has no standing to compel relief by his own motion under the recall-and-resentencing statute (renumbered section 1172.1 before the motion was filed), so affirmance is a defensible result. The record as described does not allow verification of the day count (a fully inclusive count of the stated dates would be 2068 days rather than 2067), but the opinion does not supply the custody dates or trial court reasoning needed to find error.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed counsel finds no arguable issues, the Court of Appeal must independently review the entire record for arguable error in a first appeal of right.
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.
missed: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Wende/Anders independent review is not constitutionally required in appeals from postjudgment orders; if no supplemental brief is filed after proper notice the court may dismiss the appeal as abandoned, though it retains discretion to review the record. The opinion applied Wende review without acknowledging this binding Supreme Court decision issued three months earlier.
missed: People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496 — Wende review does not apply to appeals from postconviction orders that are not the first appeal of right; the court may dismiss when the defendant files no supplemental brief.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The affirmance is defensible because nothing indicates the trial court erred in refusing to recalculate credits already awarded, and the defendant could not invoke former section 1170.03 on his own motion. The opinion, however, applies Wende procedures to a postjudgment appeal without addressing People v. Delgadillo, and it offers no reasoning on the two issues counsel identified, leaving the analysis bare.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 3/30/23 P. v. Calderon 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, D081213

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD127067)

ROGELIO CALDERON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Jeffrey F. Fraser, Judge. Affirmed. Sheila O’Connor, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2009, a jury convicted Rogelio Calderon of first degree murder (Pen.

Code,1 § 187, subd. (a)). He was sentenced in 2012 to an indeterminate term of 25 years to life, plus 10 years for the use of a firearm. The court awarded 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. Calderon 2067 days of actual days of custody credits for the period of January 25, 2007 to September 21, 2012. In August 2022, Calderon filed a motion to award additional custody credits for the same time period pursuant to section 1170.03. The trial court denied the motion by written order. Calderon filed a 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 Calderon the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.2 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 two possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal. 1. Whether the trial court erred in calculating Calderon’s custody credits. 2. Whether Calderon’s case was final for purposes of obtaining relief under section 1170.03. 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 Calderon on this appeal.

2 The facts of the underlying offense are not relevant to this appeal. We will omit a statement of facts. 2 DISPOSITION The order denying Calderon’s motion to recalculate custody credits is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

DATO, J.

DO, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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