People v. Carre CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D081329 · 2023-08-24 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD287138
Trial judge: Kenneth K. So
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Laurence D. Rubin, Michele M. Castillo

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:30Z · confidence high

The trial court accepted Carre's guilty plea and imposed a four-year prison term suspended in favor of probation, consistent with the plea agreement. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after conducting an independent review of the record and finding no arguable issues for reversal.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of certificate of probable cause (CPC) “Appellant’s request for a certificate of probable cause was denied and, as part of the plea, appellant waived issues relating to any suppression motion denials, any prior strike convictions, and the stipulated sentence.”	unclear	correct	agree with court agree with court
Affirmance of judgment following Wende/Anders review “We have reviewed the record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.”	de novo	correct	agree with court agree with court

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to file a brief identifying arguable issues or, if none exist, to request the court to independently review the record for error.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires counsel to file a brief identifying arguable issues or, if none exist, to request the court to independently review the record for error.

The appellate opinion: sound — The court correctly applied the Wende/Anders framework to review the record for error in a pro per appeal where counsel found no arguable issues. It properly noted that without a CPC, direct appeal is limited to post-plea issues, excluding challenges to the plea itself.

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 accepted Carre's guilty plea to assault with a deadly weapon and corporal injury to a spouse, imposed a four-year prison term with execution suspended, and granted probation; the request for a certificate of probable cause was denied. On appeal, counsel filed a Wende brief, Carre filed a supplemental brief attacking the plea and trial counsel's performance, and the Court of Appeal found no arguable issues and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Imposition of a four-year suspended sentence and grant of probation in accordance with the plea agreement “At sentencing, the court imposed a four-year prison term but suspended the execution and granted Carre probation.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The court conducted an independent Wende/Anders review of the record, considered whether Carre was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement, and found no arguable issue. The brief opinion recites that the parties agreed to probation and that probation was granted, which is consistent with the agreement; nothing in the opinion suggests error.
Validity of the guilty plea and adequacy of trial counsel's representation, raised in Carre's supplemental brief “In the absence of a certificate of probable cause Carre cannot challenge the plea on direct appeal. Carre’s complaints will have to be aired in a petition for habeas corpus if at all.”	unclear	not reached	agree with court Section 1237.5 requires a certificate of probable cause to challenge the validity of a guilty plea on direct appeal; the certificate was denied, so the court correctly declined to reach attacks on the plea and on trial counsel's pre-plea performance, noting habeas corpus as the proper vehicle. This is consistent with settled law, though the court cited no authority beyond section 1237.5 itself.

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 — 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. Kelly (2006) 33 Cal.4th 367 — In a Wende appeal, the Court of Appeal must address in its opinion the contentions raised in the defendant's supplemental brief and explain why they fail; the court here did so briefly but did not cite Kelly.
missed: People v. Panizzon (1996) 25 Cal.4th 1111 — A challenge to a sentence that was part of the plea bargain is in substance a challenge to the validity of the plea and requires a certificate of probable cause under section 1237.5.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court performed the required independent Wende/Anders review, addressed the supplemental brief, and correctly held that attacks on the plea and trial counsel cannot be raised on direct appeal without a certificate of probable cause. The opinion is very short and cites no authority for the certificate-of-probable-cause bar or for its handling of the supplemental brief, but the result is plainly correct.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

Filed 8/24/23 P. v. Carre 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, D081329

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD287138)

CHRISTOPHER J. CARRE, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Kenneth K. So, Judge. Affirmed. Christopher Carre, in pro. per.; and Siri Shetty, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Christopher Carre entered into a plea agreement in which he pleaded guilty to assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code,1 § 245, subd. (a)(1); count 1) and corporal injury to a spouse (§ 273.5, subd. (a); count 2). Carre 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. admitted the use of a deadly weapon (§ 1192.7, subd. (c)(23)). The parties agreed Carre would be granted probation on various conditions. At sentencing, the court imposed a four-year prison term but suspended the execution and granted Carre probation. The remaining counts and allegations were dismissed. Carre filed a timely notice of appeal and requested a certificate of probable cause (§ 1237.5). The request for a certificate of probable cause was denied.2 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 Carre the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal. He has responded by filing a supplemental brief, which we will discuss later in this opinion. In his change of plea, Carre admitted assaulting the victim with a weapon (to wit: a brick) and that he inflicted traumatic injury. DISCUSSION 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 the following possible issue that was 2 With regard to the denial of the certificate of probable cause this court entered the following order: “Appellant’s request for a certificate of probable cause was denied and, as part of the plea, appellant waived issues relating to any suppression motion denials, any prior strike convictions, and the stipulated sentence. The issues on appeal are thus limited to matters occurring after the plea that do not involve prior strike convictions and the stipulated sentence, other than as set forth in Penal Code section 1016.8.” 2 considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Was Carre sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement? We have considered Carre’s supplemental brief and conclude it does not identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. His brief is an attack on the guilty plea and in particular a criticism of trial counsel’s representation. In the absence of a certificate of probable cause Carre cannot challenge the plea on direct appeal. Carre’s complaints will have to be aired in a petition for habeas corpus if at all. There is nothing in the supplemental brief that raises any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. We have reviewed the record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Carre on this appeal. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

CASTILLO, J.

RUBIN, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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