People v. Erickson CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D081788 · 2024-02-02 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from an order
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCN436047
Trial judge: Anthony J. Campagna
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Joan K. Irion (author), O'Rourke, Michele M. Castillo

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:19Z · confidence low

The trial court convicted Jason Wayne Erickson of sexual penetration of an unconscious victim and sentenced him to three years in prison. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, finding no arguable issues for reversal.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Independent review of the record for error (Wende review) “We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.”	de novo	not reached	agree with court The court conducted the required independent review of the record and found no arguable issues for reversal.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to conduct an independent review of the record for error when no arguable issues are identified.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires counsel to file a brief identifying arguable issues and to request leave to withdraw, with the court conducting an independent review of the record.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly identifies the Wende/Anders framework and states that the court performed the required independent review of the record. It reaches the defensible result of affirming the judgment based on the absence of arguable issues.

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

A jury convicted Jason Wayne Erickson of sexual penetration of an unconscious victim (Pen. Code, § 289, subd. (d)), and the trial court, finding him probation-ineligible under section 1203.065, sentenced him to the lower term of three years with $2,170 in fines and fees. Appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief, Erickson 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
Trial court's evidentiary rulings at trial “(1) Whether the trial court prejudicially erred in any evidentiary rulings;”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion identifies this as a potential Anders issue but provides no description of the specific rulings or analysis; the court simply states its independent review found no arguable issue. Without any record detail, I cannot independently evaluate the ruling.
Denial of defense for-cause challenge to prospective juror number 4 “(2) Whether the trial court’s denial of the defense for cause challenge to potential juror number 4 was prejudicial error;”	unclear	correct	unsure No facts about the juror's voir dire responses or the basis for the challenge appear in the opinion. The court's conclusion that no arguable issue exists is unverifiable from the text.
Refusal to find good cause to excuse sworn juror number 6 “(3) Whether the trial court erred in not finding good cause to excuse sworn juror number 6;”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion gives no detail on why excusal was sought or what the trial court found. I cannot assess the merits from the opinion alone.
Instructing the jury with CALCRIM No. 226 over defense objection “(4) Whether the trial court erred by instructing with CALCRIM No. 226 over defense objection;”	unclear	correct	unsure CALCRIM No. 226 is the standard witness-credibility instruction and is routinely given; the opinion does not describe the basis of the objection. The result is plausible but the opinion supplies no reasoning.
Adequacy of jury instructions, including on lesser included offenses “(5) Whether all necessary and required jury instructions, including for lesser included offenses, were provided;”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion does not identify which lesser included offenses were considered or what instructions were given. No independent assessment is possible.
Sufficiency of evidence supporting the conviction on count 1 “(6) Whether substantial evidence supports the finding of guilt on count 1;”	unclear	correct	agree with court The factual summary describes the victim awakening to Erickson's fingers inside her vagina after she had gone to sleep heavily intoxicated, with corroborating testimony from a forensic nurse and DNA experts. On those facts, substantial evidence of penetration of an unconscious victim appears to exist, though the opinion does not expressly apply the standard.
Trial court's response to jury question on voluntary intoxication “(7) Whether the trial court’s response to the jury question regarding application of voluntary intoxication was prejudicial error;”	unclear	correct	unsure The content of the jury's question and the court's response are not described. The merits cannot be evaluated from the opinion.
Finding of probation ineligibility under section 1203.065 and imposition of the three-year lower term “Given the statutory provision of which he was convicted, Erickson was ineligible for probation. (§ 1203.065, subd. (a).)”	unclear	correct	unsure The court accepted that section 1203.065, subdivision (a) bars probation for a section 289, subdivision (d) conviction and that the lower term was within the court's discretion. The lower term is the most lenient prison term available, so prejudice from any sentencing error is unlikely, but the opinion does not analyze the statute.
Calculation and imposition of fines, fees, and presentence custody credits “(9) Whether fines and fees and pre-trial custody credits were properly calculated and imposed.”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion states fines and fees totaling $2,170 were imposed and that no victim restitution fine was imposed at sentencing, but does not itemize them or state the credits awarded. The court's conclusion cannot be checked from the text.

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 lacks merit must file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion follows the required Wende/Anders procedure: counsel identified potential issues, the defendant was given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief, the court recited the facts and procedural history, and it independently reviewed the record. Because Wende opinions need not analyze each potential issue, the absence of substantive reasoning is not a defect, but it leaves the reader unable to verify the conclusions.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 2/2/24 P. v. Erickson 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, D081788

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN436047) JASON WAYNE ERICKSON, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Anthony J. Campagna, Judge. Affirmed. Deanna L. Lopas, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Jason Wayne Erickson appeals from a judgment following conviction by a jury. 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 Erickson the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Erickson visited K.S.’s apartment on March 12, 2022, as a guest of her roommate. Erickson arranged to sleep on the couch. That night, K.S. smoked marijuana and had a cocktail before leaving the apartment to visit a bar. At the bar, she drank an additional five drinks and was intoxicated when she returned home, stumbled inside, and went to sleep. K.S. awoke a few hours later with Erickson in her bed beside her and with her dress pushed up above her stomach. His hand was inside her underwear, and he used his finger or fingers to penetrate her vagina. When she awoke, K.S. heard Erickson asked if she “like[d] that” before she exited the room. The People charged Erickson with one count of sexual penetration of an unconscious victim (Pen. Code, § 289, subd. (d), count 1)1 and one count of assault with intent to commit unlawful sexual penetration (Pen. Code, § 220, subd. (a)(1), count 2). The People subsequently dismissed count 2. At trial in January 2023, the victim, her roommates, a police officer, police detective, the nurse who performed a forensic exam of the victim, DNA experts, a memory expert, and Erickson’s friends testified; Erickson also testified in his defense. The jury convicted Erickson of one count of sexual penetration of an unconscious victim. (Pen. Code, § 289, subd. (d).) Given the statutory provision of which he was convicted, Erickson was ineligible for probation. (§ 1203.065, subd. (a).) At the March 7, 2023, sentencing hearing, Erickson was sentenced to prison for the lower term of three years and was assessed various fines and fees totaling $2,170. The court did not impose a victim restitution fine at the time of sentencing.

1 Statutory references hereafter are to the Penal Code, unless otherwise specified. 2 DISCUSSION Appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to review the record for error. To assist the court in its review of the record, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified the following possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: (1) Whether the trial court prejudicially erred in any evidentiary rulings; (2) Whether the trial court’s denial of the defense for cause challenge to potential juror number 4 was prejudicial error; (3) Whether the trial court erred in not finding good cause to excuse sworn juror number 6; (4) Whether the trial court erred by instructing with CALCRIM No. 226 over defense objection; (5) Whether all necessary and required jury instructions, including for lesser included offenses, were provided; (6) Whether substantial evidence supports the finding of guilt on count 1; (7) Whether the trial court’s response to the jury question regarding application of voluntary intoxication was prejudicial error; (8) Whether the trial court’s determination that the offense was not probation eligible was correct and whether the trial court abused its discretion in imposing a term of three years; and (9) Whether fines and fees and pre-trial custody credits were properly calculated and imposed.

3 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 Erickson on this appeal. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

IRION, J.

WE CONCUR:

O’ROURKE, Acting P. J.

CASTILLO, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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