People v. Mendoza CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D082101 · 2024-03-11 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCN437554
Trial judge: Daniel F. Link
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed with directions.
Area: criminal
Panel: Laurence D. Rubin (author), O'Rourke, Michele M. Castillo

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:16Z · confidence low

The trial court convicted Mendoza of second-degree attempted burglary, sentenced him to two years in state prison, and awarded 177 days of presentence custody credits. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment but directed the trial court to amend the abstract of judgment to correctly reflect the 177 days of credits.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Correction of abstract of judgment regarding presentence custody credits “The abstract of judgment specifies 80 days presentence custody credits, and therefore does not accurately reflect the 177 days awarded by the trial court.”	unclear	error	agree with court The appellate court identified a clerical error where the abstract of judgment listed 80 days of credits instead of the 177 days awarded by the trial court. The court directed the trial court to amend the abstract to reflect the correct number of days. This is a standard correction of a ministerial error in the judgment document.
Denial of motion to reduce conviction to a misdemeanor “Denying his motion to reduce the conviction to a misdemeanor, and to strike his prior serious and violent felony convictions, the trial court sentenced Mendoza to a one-year middle term for the attempted burglary”	abuse of discretion	not reached	unsure Appellate counsel identified this as a potential issue for independent review under Wende/Anders. The court reviewed the record and found no arguable issue that would result in reversal or modification. The court did not provide specific reasoning for why the trial court's decision was not an abuse of discretion, relying on the Wende/Anders standard of finding no arguable issues.
Denial of motion to strike prior serious and violent felony convictions “Denying his motion to reduce the conviction to a misdemeanor, and to strike his prior serious and violent felony convictions, the trial court sentenced Mendoza to a one-year middle term for the attempted burglary”	abuse of discretion	not reached	unsure Appellate counsel identified this as a potential issue for independent review under Wende/Anders. The court reviewed the record and found no arguable issue that would result in reversal or modification. The court did not provide specific reasoning for why the trial court's decision was not an abuse of discretion, relying on the Wende/Anders standard of finding no arguable issues.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Establishes the duty of appointed appellate counsel to conduct an independent review of the record for arguable issues when no issues are raised in the brief.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to file a brief stating there are no arguable issues and requesting the court to independently review the record.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it follows the Wende/Anders protocol for cases where no issues are raised. The court correctly identified a clerical error in the abstract of judgment and directed its correction. However, the opinion provides no substantive analysis for why the trial court's sentencing decisions (denial of misdemeanor reduction and striking priors) were not arguable errors, which is typical for Wende/Anders cases but leaves the reasoning implicit.

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 Angel Mendoza of second degree attempted burglary; after he admitted eight prior felonies, the trial court denied his motions to reduce the offense to a misdemeanor and to strike his prior strike convictions, sentenced him to two years (middle term doubled under section 667, subdivision (e)), and awarded 177 days of presentence custody credit. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief, Mendoza filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issue, but directed correction of the abstract of judgment, which listed only 80 days of credit instead of the 177 awarded, affirming in all other respects.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Judgment of conviction for second degree attempted burglary (sufficiency of the evidence identified as a potential issue) “Our independent review confirms there are no arguable issues on appeal except an error in the abstract of judgment regarding presentence custody credits.”	substantial evidence	correct	agree with court Under Wende and Anders the court conducted an independent review of the record and found no arguable issue; the opinion does not detail the trial evidence, so I cannot independently verify sufficiency, but the Wende procedure was properly followed and nothing in the opinion suggests error.
Denial of motion to reduce the attempted burglary conviction to a misdemeanor “(2) whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Mendoza’s request to reduce his conviction to a misdemeanor”	abuse of discretion	correct	agree with court Counsel flagged this as a potential issue; the appellate court considered it and found no arguable error. Given eight prior felony convictions including four serious or violent felonies, a refusal to reduce the offense would be well within the trial court's discretion, and the opinion provides no basis to question the ruling.
Denial of motion to strike prior serious and violent felony convictions “(3) whether the trial court abused its discretion by not striking Mendoza’s prior serious and violent felony convictions.”	abuse of discretion	correct	agree with court The court reviewed this potential issue under Wende and found nothing arguable. The trial court imposed only the middle term doubled (two years) despite four prior strikes, indicating lenient exercise of discretion; the opinion does not recite facts suggesting the denial was irrational or arbitrary.
Abstract of judgment reflecting 80 days of presentence custody credit rather than the 177 days orally awarded “The abstract of judgment specifies 80 days presentence custody credits, and therefore does not accurately reflect the 177 days awarded by the trial court.”	unclear	error (procedure)	agree with court The oral pronouncement of judgment controls over a conflicting abstract, and the appellate court may order correction of a clerical error in the abstract at any time. Directing the abstract be amended to match the 177 days awarded is the correct remedy.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel files a brief raising 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 an appeal wholly frivolous may so advise the court and request leave to withdraw, accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, after which the court independently examines the record.

The appellate opinion: sound — The court followed the Wende/Anders procedure, noted that Mendoza was advised of and declined his right to file a supplemental brief, considered the three potential issues counsel identified, and corrected a clerical discrepancy in the abstract of judgment. The opinion is brief and does not recite the underlying evidence or the trial court's reasons on the sentencing motions, but that is typical of Wende dispositions and nothing in it suggests a misreading of law.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

Filed 3/11/24 P. v. Mendoza 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, D082101

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN437554)

ANGEL MENDOZA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Daniel F. Link, Judge. Affirmed with directions. William D. Farber, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Angel Mendoza appeals from his second degree attempted burglary conviction. His appointed appellate counsel filed an opening brief raising no arguable issues pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders); Mendoza did not file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. Our independent review confirms there are no arguable issues on appeal except an error in the abstract of judgment regarding presentence custody credits. We affirm with directions to correct that error. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND After he got caught trying to break into an unoccupied house, prosecutors charged Mendoza with second degree attempted burglary. A jury convicted Mendoza of the crime. (Pen. Code1, §§ 459, 460, subd. (b), 664). Mendoza then admitted eight prior felony convictions, four of which were serious or violent felonies (§ 667, subd. (d)). Denying his motion to reduce the conviction to a misdemeanor, and to strike his prior serious and violent felony convictions, the trial court sentenced Mendoza to a one-year middle term for the attempted burglary, doubled to two years under section 667, subdivision (e). The court awarded Mendoza 177 days of presentence custody credits, representing 89 days spent in custody and 88 days of section 4019 conduct credits. Mendoza filed a timely notice of appeal. His appointed appellate counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking us to review the record for error under Wende and Anders. Counsel identified three potential issues to assist us in our independent review: (1) whether sufficient evidence existed to support Mendoza’s conviction; (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Mendoza’s request to reduce his conviction to a misdemeanor; and (3) whether the trial court abused its discretion by not striking Mendoza’s prior serious and violent felony convictions. Both Mendoza’s counsel and this court informed him of his right to file a supplemental brief, but Mendoza declined to do so.

1 All subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 DISCUSSION We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders, and considered the issues identified by Mendoza’s counsel. The abstract of judgment specifies 80 days presentence custody credits, and therefore does not accurately reflect the 177 days awarded by the trial court. Otherwise, we find no arguable issue that would result in a reversal or modification of the conviction. We therefore affirm the judgment with directions to correct the abstract of judgment. Competent counsel has represented Mendoza on this appeal. DISPOSITION The abstract of judgement filed on April 28, 2023, shall be amended to reflect the 177 days of presentence custody credits awarded by the trial court and a certified copy of the amended abstract shall be sent to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

RUBIN, J.

WE CONCUR:

O’ROURKE, Acting P. J.

CASTILLO, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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