People v. Sefein CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from judgments
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD282524, SCE392705
- Trial judge
- Daniel Link
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), William S. Dato, Buchanan
Analysis
The trial court accepted guilty pleas for receiving stolen property and grand theft, granting summary felony probation in both cases. The appellate court affirmed the judgments after an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Affirmance of judgments following guilty pleas and sentencing to summary felony probation“Our review has not identified any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. We are satisfied Sefein has been represented by competent counsel and that the judgments should be affirmed.” | de novo | not reached | agree with court The court applied the Wende standard, independently reviewing the record for any arguable issues of error. Finding none, it affirmed the judgments. The reasoning is procedurally correct for a Wende appeal where no specific issues are raised. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Appellate counsel must file a brief identifying arguable issues or, if none exist, request the court to independently review the record.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel must provide a brief identifying any arguable issues, even if none are found, to ensure effective assistance of counsel on appeal.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly follows the procedural requirements for a Wende appeal, noting that counsel filed a brief and the court conducted an independent review. It accurately states that no arguable issues were identified in the record.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court accepted Sefein's guilty pleas to receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496d) and grand theft in two cases, declined to reduce the § 496d conviction to a misdemeanor, and granted two years of summary felony probation in each case. On appeal, counsel filed a Wende brief, Sefein filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed both judgments.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of request to reduce the § 496d receiving stolen property conviction to a misdemeanor and grant of summary felony probation for two years in both cases“The court declined to reduce the conviction to a misdemeanor, but did grant summary felony probation with credit for Sefein’s time in custody.” | unclear | correct | unsure The opinion does not analyze the reduction request on the merits; it conducts a Wende independent review and finds no arguable issue. A decision whether to reduce a wobbler is discretionary, and nothing in the opinion suggests an abuse. Because the record is not described, I cannot independently verify the result beyond the court's statement that it examined the record. |
Judgments entered on guilty pleas without certificates of probable cause; independent Wende review of the entire record“Our review has not identified any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. We are satisfied Sefein has been represented by competent counsel and that the judgments should be affirmed.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The court followed the Wende/Anders procedure: counsel filed a no-issues brief, the defendant was given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief and did not, and the court independently reviewed the record. Absent a certificate of probable cause, review is limited to post-plea matters, which the court acknowledges. The procedure described is consistent with Wende and Kelly. |
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 should file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
- missed: People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 — In a Wende appeal the Court of Appeal's opinion should describe the facts and procedural history, the crimes of which the defendant was convicted, the punishment imposed, and any contentions raised by the defendant personally; the court here gave only a minimal procedural description and expressly declined to construct a statement of facts.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court correctly applied the Wende procedure, offered the defendant a chance to file his own brief, and independently reviewed the record given the absence of certificates of probable cause. It did not cite People v. Kelly and gave only a sparse description of the procedural history and no description of the offenses, which is a minor gap but does not affect the defensible result.
Opinion
Filed 10/3/23 P. v. Sefein 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, D080967
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. Nos. SCD282524, SCE392705) KIRELLOS SEFEIN, Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from judgments of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Daniel Link, Judge. Affirmed. Richard Jay Moller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. This appeal arises out of guilty pleas in two separate cases. The pleas were taken at the same time and were later sentenced at the same time. The combined cases were resolved with grants of summary felony probation for two years. Case No. SCE392705 Kirellos Sefein pleaded guilty to one count of receiving stolen property (Pen. Code,1 § 496d) as part of a plea agreement in which the court agreed to delay sentencing for one year to allow Sefein to pay restitution and receive counselling. When the matter was called for sentencing, Sefein ultimately provided proof of payment of restitution and participation in a substantial amount of sentencing. The court declined to reduce the conviction to a misdemeanor, but did grant summary felony probation with credit for Sefein’s time in custody. Sefein filed a notice of appeal. Case No. SCD282524 Sefein pleaded guilty to one count of grand theft of personal property valued in excess of $950. The plea was entered under the same plea agreement and was subject to the same conditions as in case No. SCE392705. Ultimately Sefein was also granted summary felony probation for two years. Sefein 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 the court to independently review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Sefein the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. These convictions follow from guilty pleas thus there was no evidentiary hearing to determine the facts of the offenses. We will not construct a statement of facts in this case.
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 DISCUSSION As we have noted, counsel has filed a Wende brief and asked the court to independently review the record for error. Counsel has not identified any specific possible issues which should be disclosed in light of Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders). Counsel recognizes the duty to diligently review possible meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Given there were no certificates of probable cause issued and the nature of the sentences imposed, we are satisfied we have been able to fully examine this record. Our review has not identified any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. We are satisfied Sefein has been represented by competent counsel and that the judgments should be affirmed. DISPOSITION The judgments are affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
DATO, J.
BUCHANAN, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12