People v. Martinez CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D080816 · 2023-07-20 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD275948
Trial judge: Eugenia A. Eyherabide
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Laurence D. Rubin, Joan K. Irion

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:31Z · confidence low

The trial court denied the defendant's motion to set aside his guilty plea for first-degree murder and sentenced him to 45 years to life. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after 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 set aside guilty plea “The court denied the motion to set aside the plea and sentenced Martinez as indicated above.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The opinion does not explicitly state the standard of review applied to the trial court's denial of the motion to withdraw the plea. It notes that appellate counsel identified this as a possible issue, but the court's independent review concluded there were no arguable issues for reversal without detailing the specific legal analysis or standard applied to the trial court's discretion.

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 to withdraw from representation on appeal by filing a brief identifying arguable issues and the court to independently review the record.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound in following the Wende/Anders protocol for appointed appellate counsel. However, it provides no substantive legal analysis or explanation for why the trial court's denial of the plea withdrawal was correct, relying solely on the conclusion that no arguable issues were found.

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 Martinez's motion under Penal Code section 1018 to withdraw his guilty plea to first degree murder with a firearm enhancement and sentenced him to the stipulated term of 45 years to life. On appeal, counsel filed a Wende brief, Martinez 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 motion to withdraw guilty plea under Penal Code section 1018 for lack of good cause (claimed lack of interpreter at critical stages and history of brain damage) “Whether the trial court erred 2 The facts of the offense are not important to the resolution of the possible issues on this appeal. We will omit a statement of facts. 2 in finding Martinez had not shown good cause to set aside the guilty plea”	unclear	correct	unsure A section 1018 ruling is reviewed for abuse of discretion and the defendant must show good cause by clear and convincing evidence, but the opinion does not state the standard or discuss the evidence from the hearing; it only reports that independent Wende review disclosed no arguable issue. Without the record, there is no basis to say the trial court erred, but also no reasoning to evaluate.

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 error.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Counsel filing a no-issue brief should identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal to assist the court's review.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the standard Wende/Anders procedure, notes the certificate of probable cause, and identifies the one potential issue counsel flagged, so the affirmance is defensible. It omits any statement of facts or the standard of review for the section 1018 motion, and does not reference People v. Kelly's guidance on the content of Wende opinions, leaving the reader unable to assess the merits of the plea-withdrawal ruling.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 7/20/23 P. v. Martinez 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, D080816

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD275948)

ERNESTO C. MARTINEZ, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Eugenia A. Eyherabide, Judge. Affirmed. Kevin Smith, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Ernesto C. Martinez entered into a plea agreement, in which he pleaded guilty to first degree murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187, subd. (a)) and admitted he personally discharged a firearm causing death (§ 12022.53, 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. subd. (c)). The remaining charges and allegations were dismissed, and the parties stipulated to an indeterminate sentence of 45 years to life in prison. Prior to sentencing, Martinez advised the court he wanted to withdraw his guilty plea and proceed to trial under section 1018. Martinez claimed the plea was a result of ignorance and mistake and that he did not understand due to lack of an interpreter at crucial times. The court relieved appointed counsel and appointed the alternate public defender to represent Martinez in his challenge to his guilty plea and sentencing. Thereafter, a motion for new trial was filed and the court held an evidentiary hearing. The court denied the motion to set aside the plea and sentenced Martinez as indicated above. Martinez filed a timely notice of appeal and obtained a certificate of probable cause. (§ 1237.5.) Appellate counsel 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 Martinez the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.

DISCUSSION2 As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to independently 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 2 The facts of the offense are not important to the resolution of the possible issues on this appeal. We will omit a statement of facts. 2 in finding Martinez had not shown good cause to set aside the guilty plea considering the claim of denial of an interpreter at critical stages and his history of brain damage from Martinez’s boxing career. We have independently reviewed the record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Martinez on this appeal. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

IRION, J.

RUBIN, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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