People v. Dennis CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D082171 · 2024-01-24 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD296661
Trial judge: Dwayne K. Moring
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Buchanan (author), Joan K. Irion, William S. Dato

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:20Z · confidence high

The trial court accepted Dennis's guilty plea to vandalism and sentenced him to two years of formal probation with a restitution fine. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, finding no reasonably arguable issues for reversal.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Independent review of the record for error (Wende/Anders review) “Based on our independent review of the record, we find no reasonably arguable appellate issues and affirm the judgment.”	de novo	not reached	agree with court The court applied the standard Wende/Anders review, which requires the appellate court to independently examine the record for any reasonably arguable issues. The court found none, which is the correct procedural outcome for this type of appeal where counsel identifies no errors and the record supports the plea and sentencing.
Guilty plea validity and sentencing “At the plea hearing, the trial court admonished him of the constitutional rights he was waiving in pleading guilty, and he submitted a guilty plea form indicating his understanding of the consequences of his plea.”	de novo	not reached	agree with court The court reviewed the record and found that the trial court properly admonished the defendant of his rights and that the plea was voluntary and intelligent. The sentencing, including probation conditions and restitution, was reviewed and found to be within the trial court's discretion and supported by the record.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appellate counsel to file a brief identifying any arguable issues and the court to independently review the record if no issues are found.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appellate counsel to file a brief identifying any arguable issues and the court to independently review the record if no issues are found.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the Wende/Anders framework for independent review. It accurately summarizes the procedural history and the trial court's actions, and its conclusion that no reasonably arguable issues exist is supported by the record description provided.

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 Dennis's self-represented guilty plea to one count of vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594), suspended imposition of sentence, placed him on two years of formal probation, and imposed a stipulated $839.88 victim restitution fine. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief identifying seven possible issues, Dennis filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal, after independent review of the record, found no arguable issues and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Entry of judgment on guilty plea to vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594) with probation, reviewed under Wende/Anders independent review “Based on our independent review of the record, we find no reasonably arguable appellate issues and affirm the judgment.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The court followed the Wende/Anders procedure: it recited the facts and procedural history, noted counsel's brief and the notice sent to the defendant, listed the Anders issues, and stated it independently reviewed the record. Nothing in the opinion suggests the procedure was defective, though the court provides no substantive analysis of any issue, which is typical of Wende dispositions.
Advisement and waiver of constitutional rights at the guilty plea “At the plea hearing, the trial court admonished him of the constitutional rights he was waiving in pleading guilty, and he submitted a guilty plea form indicating his understanding of the consequences of his plea.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The opinion recites that the trial court orally admonished Dennis of the rights he was waiving, that he submitted a written plea form acknowledging the consequences, and that he admitted a factual basis. On those facts no arguable Boykin/Tahl error appears, and the appellate court treated the Anders question as non-arguable.
Failure to hold a competency hearing and failure to consider pretrial mental health diversion “(1) Did the trial court abuse its discretion by not conducting a hearing regarding Dennis’s mental competence?”	unclear	correct	unsure The court listed these as Anders issues but gave no analysis and recited no facts about Dennis's mental state beyond his objection to psychiatric probation conditions. Without record facts about any evidence of incompetence or any request for diversion, I cannot independently assess whether substantial evidence of incompetence triggered a hearing duty under Penal Code section 1368, so the court's implicit conclusion cannot be confirmed from the opinion.
Proceeding to sentencing without an advance copy of the probation report “Despite not receiving the probation report in advance of the hearing, he indicated his desire to go forward with sentencing.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The opinion states Dennis received the report at the hearing and expressly chose to proceed. A defendant who elects to go forward after receiving the report forfeits any complaint about late disclosure, so the appellate court's treatment of this as a non-arguable issue is supported by the recited facts.
Imposition of $839.88 victim restitution without a restitution hearing and without an ability-to-pay determination “The trial court also imposed a victim restitution fine in the amount of $839.88, to which Dennis stipulated.”	unclear	correct	agree with court Dennis stipulated to the restitution amount, which forfeits any claim to a separate restitution hearing. Victim restitution under section 1202.4, subdivision (f), is not subject to an ability-to-pay inquiry, and the opinion does not identify any other fines or fees, so the result is defensible on the recited record, though the court offers no analysis.
Probation conditions, including psychiatric medication/treatment conditions, challenged as vague and overbroad “However, after the trial court indicated that probation would not be granted if he was not willing to follow the probation terms that were ordered, he withdrew any objections.”	unclear	correct	agree with court Dennis raised and then withdrew his objection to psychiatric conditions, and no facial constitutional challenge is described. The opinion does not quote the conditions, so a facial vagueness challenge cannot be evaluated here, but the withdrawal of the objection and the court's independent review support treating the issue as non-arguable.

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 must file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, and the court must then conduct its own examination of the record.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the standard Wende/Anders procedure, recites the facts and procedural history, lists counsel's identified issues, and states that an independent review disclosed no arguable issues; the recited facts (plea advisements, stipulated restitution, waiver of advance probation report, withdrawn objection to conditions) support that conclusion. It offers no analysis of the competency, diversion, or probation-condition questions, which is permissible in a Wende disposition but leaves those conclusions unverifiable from the face of the opinion.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 1/24/24 P. v. Dennis 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, D082171

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD296661)

GREGORY D. DENNIS, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Dwayne K. Moring, Judge. Affirmed. Stephanie A. Lickel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent. Gregory D. Dennis appeals from a judgment following his entry of a guilty plea. His appointed counsel has filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders). We mailed Dennis notice of his right to personally file a brief, but the mailing was returned unopened with a USPS stamp stating, “Return to Sender/Refused/Unable to Forward.” Dennis did not personally file a brief. Based on our independent review of the record, we find no reasonably arguable appellate issues and affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On March 1, 2023, Dennis, proceeding in pro per, pled guilty to one count of vandalism (Pen. Code,1 § 594, subd. (a)(b)(1)). At the plea hearing, the trial court admonished him of the constitutional rights he was waiving in pleading guilty, and he submitted a guilty plea form indicating his understanding of the consequences of his plea. He also admitted to the factual basis underlying the vandalism charge. At the sentencing hearing on March 29, 2023, Dennis received a copy of the probation report. Despite not receiving the probation report in advance of the hearing, he indicated his desire to go forward with sentencing. He then objected to any condition of probation that required he take psychiatric medications or talk to a psychiatric doctor. However, after the trial court indicated that probation would not be granted if he was not willing to follow the probation terms that were ordered, he withdrew any objections. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence with credit for time served and ordered Dennis to two years of formal probation. The trial court also imposed a victim restitution fine in the amount of $839.88, to which Dennis stipulated. On May 8, 2023, Dennis filed a notice of appeal from the judgment and a request for a certificate of probable cause. On May 19, 2023, the trial court issued a certificate of probable cause. DISCUSSION Dennis’s appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 the case and statement of facts, urging no grounds for reversal of the judgment, and asking this court to independently review the record for error. Pursuant to Anders, counsel identified the following issues to assist the court in its search of the record for error: (1) Did the trial court abuse its discretion by not conducting a hearing regarding Dennis’s mental competence? (2) Did the trial court properly advise Dennis of his constitutional rights in pleading guilty? (3) Did the trial court abuse its discretion by failing to hold a restitution hearing? (4) Did the trial court abuse its discretion by sentencing Dennis at the sentencing hearing even though he had not received an advance copy of the probation report? (5) Did the trial court abuse its discretion by not considering whether Dennis was eligible for pretrial mental health diversion? (6) Did the trial court err in failing to consider Dennis’s ability to the ordered fines and fees? and (7) Were the conditions of probation unconstitutionally vague and overbroad? 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 Dennis on this appeal.

3 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

BUCHANAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

IRION, Acting P. J.

DATO, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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