People v. Blackwood CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCS316960
- Trial judge
- Michael J. Popkins
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), O'Rourke, Julia C. Kelety
Analysis
The trial court denied Blackwood's motions to suppress evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5, leading to his guilty plea and sentencing. 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 motions to suppress evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5“We do not find that any of his opinions present arguable issues for reversal on appeal.” | unclear | not reached | unsure The appellate court did not apply a specific standard of review (such as de novo or abuse of discretion) to the suppression ruling. Instead, it performed a general independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende and concluded that the issue was not 'arguable' for reversal. Because the court did not analyze the merits of the suppression claim or apply the appropriate legal standard to the facts, the ruling is not reached on the merits in this opinion. |
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 arguable issues.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires independent review of the record by the appellate court when appointed counsel files a brief stating there are no arguable issues.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound in that it follows the Wende/Anders protocol by stating that the court reviewed the entire record and found no arguable issues. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' opinion because it fails to provide any specific reasoning or legal analysis for why the suppression issues or ineffective assistance claims were not arguable, relying solely on a conclusory statement.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual disposition unusual dispositionThe trial court denied Blackwood's Penal Code section 1538.5 motions to suppress, after which he pleaded guilty to drug transportation and possession-for-sale counts, admitted firearm and ammunition offenses, and was sentenced to five years in prison. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief, Blackwood filed his own submission attacking the suppression rulings and his trial counsel, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of Blackwood's motions to suppress evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5“Whether the trial court erred in denying Blackwood’s motions to suppress evidence under section 1538.5.” | unclear | correct | unsure The opinion states no standard of review and sets out no facts about the search or seizure, so there is nothing in the opinion from which to evaluate whether the suppression rulings were legally sound; the court simply reports that its independent Wende review disclosed no arguable issue. |
Claim that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in litigating the suppression motions“Whether trial counsel provided Blackwood with effective assistance in the motions to suppress.” | unclear | correct | unsure The court identified this as an Anders issue and considered Blackwood's own arguments about inadequate representation, but gave no description of what counsel did or failed to do and no reasons for rejecting the claim, so the conclusion cannot be independently assessed from the opinion. |
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 error.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds no meritorious issues should identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal to assist the court's review.
- missed: People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 — A Wende opinion should include a brief description of the facts and procedural history, and when the defendant files a supplemental brief the court must set out the contentions he personally raised and the reasons they fail.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The result is defensible: a Wende review following a guilty plea, with counsel's identified issues and the defendant's pro. per. contentions all found to lack arguable merit. But the opinion promises to discuss Blackwood's submission and then rejects it in a single sentence without stating his contentions or the reasons they fail, and omits any statement of facts, which falls short of the content People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 requires in a Wende opinion when a defendant files his own brief.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
record incompleteOpinion
Filed 2/2/24 P. v. Blackwood 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, D081647
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCS316960)
CHRISTOPHER B. BLACKWOOD, Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Michael J. Popkins, Judge. Affirmed. Christopher B. Blackwood, in pro. per.; and Belinda Escobosa, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Following the denial of his motions to suppress evidence under Penal Code1 section 1538.5, Christopher B. Blackwood pleaded guilty to transportation of a controlled substance; possession of a controlled substance 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated. for sale (Health and Saf. Code, §§ 11379, subd. (a), 11378, & 11370.1, subd. (a)). He also admitted possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)) and possession of ammunition (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1)). Blackwood was sentenced to a term of five years in prison. Blackwood filed a timely 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 Blackwood the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal. He has responded with a lengthy submission which we will discuss later in this opinion.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 denying Blackwood’s motions to suppress evidence under section 1538.5. 2. Whether trial counsel provided Blackwood with effective assistance in the motions to suppress. In his own submission, Blackwood offers multiple reasons why he thinks the evidence should have been suppressed and why he believes he was not adequately represented by counsel.
2 This appeal is from a guilty plea. We will not set out a statement of facts. 2 We have reviewed the record and considered Blackwood’s various contentions regarding the trial court proceedings. We do not find that any of his opinions present arguable issues for reversal on appeal. 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 Blackwood on this appeal. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
O’ROURKE, J.
KELETY, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12