People v. Bermingham CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D082366 · 2024-04-04 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCN434259
Trial judge: Brad A. Weinreb
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Judith D. McConnell, Buchanan

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:14Z · confidence low

The trial court denied the defendant's motion to replace counsel and his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas, subsequently sentencing him to a stipulated term of three years and eight months in prison. On appeal, 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 motion to replace counsel (Marsden motion) “The court held a hearing and denied the motion.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The appellate court identified the denial of the Marsden motion as a potential issue for review but concluded after independent review that it did not constitute an arguable issue for reversal. The opinion does not specify the standard of review applied to this specific ruling, nor does it provide detailed reasoning for why the trial court's decision was correct, relying instead on the general Wende/Anders finding of no error.
Denial of motion to withdraw guilty pleas “The court also denied Bermingham’s motion to withdraw his guilty pleas.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The appellate court listed the potential issue of whether the guilty plea was coerced as a matter for review but ultimately found no arguable issues for reversal. The opinion does not explicitly state the standard of review for the withdrawal motion or provide specific analysis regarding the voluntariness of the plea, other than the general conclusion that no error was found.
Sentencing (Stipulated term) “Bermingham was sentenced to the stipulated term of three years eight months in prison.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The appellate court considered the potential issue of whether terms should have run concurrently under section 654 but found no arguable issues for reversal. The opinion does not detail the standard of review for the sentencing calculation or the specific reasoning for affirming the stipulated sentence, relying on the general Wende review.

Authorities

relied: People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 — Establishes the standard for a defendant's motion to replace appointed counsel.
relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appellate counsel to file a brief identifying arguable issues or, if none exist, to request the court to independently review the record for error.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires independent review of the record by the appellate court when counsel files a no-merit brief.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound in that it follows the required Wende/Anders protocol for handling no-merit appeals, including the independent review of the record and the offer for the defendant to file a brief. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' opinion because it lists specific potential issues (Marsden, coercion, section 654) but provides no substantive legal analysis or reasoning for why those specific issues were meritless, relying solely on the blanket statement that no arguable issues were discovered.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:29Z · confidence low

The trial court accepted Bermingham's guilty pleas to assault with a deadly weapon and DUI causing injury with a great bodily injury enhancement, denied his Marsden motion and his motion to withdraw the pleas, and imposed the stipulated three-year-eight-month prison term. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief, the defendant filed nothing, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of Marsden motion to replace appointed counsel “The court held a hearing and denied the motion.”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion confirms a Marsden hearing was held and states that independent Wende/Anders review disclosed no arguable error, but it does not describe the defendant's complaints or the court's findings, so the result cannot be independently verified from the opinion alone.
Denial of motion to withdraw guilty pleas (coercion claim) “The court also denied Bermingham’s motion to withdraw his guilty pleas.”	unclear	correct	unsure Counsel flagged possible coercion as an Anders issue and the court found nothing arguable after record review; the opinion recites no facts about the plea colloquy or the motion, so the conclusion is plausible but unverifiable here.
Imposition of stipulated sentence of three years eight months (section 654 / concurrent-term question) “Bermingham was sentenced to the stipulated term of three years eight months in prison.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The sentence matched the negotiated stipulated term, and a defendant who receives the bargained-for sentence generally cannot challenge its components; the court found no arguable section 654 issue, which is consistent with the stipulated nature of the disposition, though the opinion does not analyze the point.

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 an appeal wholly frivolous should so advise the court and identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
relied: People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 — A defendant seeking substitution of appointed counsel must be given an opportunity to state the reasons, and the court must inquire into them before ruling.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the Wende/Anders procedure correctly: counsel listed potential issues, the defendant was invited to file a brief, and the court states it independently reviewed the record and found no arguable issues. It is minimal, however, offering no facts or analysis of the Marsden, plea-withdrawal, or section 654 questions, so its correctness must be taken largely on the court's representation of its review.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 4/4/24 P. v. Bermingham 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, D082366

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN434259)

RYAN BERMINGHAM,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Brad A. Weinreb, Judge. Affirmed. Russell S. Babcock, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Ryan Bermingham entered into a plea agreement under which he pleaded guilty to assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code,1 § 245, subd. (a)(1)) and driving under the influence of alcohol causing injury (Veh.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. Code, § 23153, subd. (a)). He also admitted the enhancement under section 12022.7, subdivision (a). The parties stipulated Bermingham would be sentenced to a determinate term of three years eight months in prison. Prior to sentencing Bermingham brought a motion to replace counsel. (See People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.) The court held a hearing and denied the motion. The court also denied Bermingham’s motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. Bermingham was sentenced to the stipulated term of three years eight months in prison. Bermingham filed a timely notice of appeal. The court issued a certificate of probable cause. 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 Bermingham the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. The court did not conduct any evidentiary hearings on the facts of the offenses in light of the guilty pleas. Accordingly, we will not include a statement of facts in this opinion. 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 listed the following possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal. 1. Whether the court erred in denying the Marsden motion.

2 2. Whether there was any evidence that Bermingham was coerced in the guilty plea. 3. Whether the terms for counts 1 and 3 should have been run concurrently and stayed under section 654. We have reviewed the record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Bermingham on this appeal. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

BUCHANAN, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12
People v. Marsden Crim. 14119 · 1970-02-26