People v. Dearborn CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D082877 · 2024-05-20 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD299446
Trial judge: Polly H. Shamoon
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), O'Rourke, Laurence D. Rubin

Analysis

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

The trial court accepted a guilty plea to Penal Code section 417.8, suspended the imposition of sentence, and granted two years of formal probation with specific conditions. 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
Imposition of probation conditions (stay-away order, medication, drug possession, and ability to pay fines/fees) “We have reviewed the record for error as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The court conducted a Wende review but did not explicitly state the standard of review (e.g., abuse of discretion) or provide specific reasoning for why the conditions were not erroneous, relying instead on the general finding of no arguable issues.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed 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 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to withdraw from representation in an appeal where no arguable issues exist, requiring a brief and court review.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound in following the Wende/Anders protocol for a pro se appellant with appointed counsel. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' opinion because it fails to address the specific legal standards for probation conditions or the ability to pay, merely stating that no arguable issues were found without analysis.

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 Dearborn's self-represented guilty plea to Penal Code section 417.8 with a deadly weapon admission, suspended imposition of sentence, and placed him on two years of formal probation with conditions including a stay-away order, a psychotropic medication condition, a controlled-substance ban, and fines and fees after an ability-to-pay finding. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief identifying four possible issues, Dearborn filed a lengthy pro per supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Judgment of probation and its conditions (stay-away order, psychotropic medication condition, controlled-substance condition, ability-to-pay finding on fines and fees) entered after guilty plea, reviewed under Wende/Anders independent review “We have reviewed the record for error as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion performs the independent record review Wende requires and lists the Anders issues counsel flagged, but it does not describe the probation conditions, the record facts supporting them, or apply any standard (such as the Lent test for probation conditions or the ability-to-pay analysis). Without any stated reasoning or record facts, I cannot verify the conclusion that no arguable issue exists, though nothing in the opinion suggests the result is wrong and a Wende affirmance requires no detailed analysis.
Rejection of contentions in Dearborn's pro per supplemental brief “We find nothing presented by Dearborn on his own behalf raises any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.”	unclear	correct	unsure The court states it reviewed Dearborn's 100-plus pages and found most of it unrelated to the case, which is a plausible characterization given the caption quoted. However, People v. Kelly requires the opinion to reflect the contentions the defendant actually raised and the reasons they fail; the opinion identifies no specific contention, so compliance with Kelly cannot be 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 error.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Counsel filing a no-merit brief 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 — In a Wende appeal where the defendant files a supplemental brief, the Court of Appeal's opinion must reflect the contentions raised by the defendant and the reasons they fail; the court here did not identify any specific contention from Dearborn's filing.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the Wende/Anders procedure, lists the issues counsel identified, and states it independently reviewed the record, which is a defensible disposition on a plea appeal without a certificate of probable cause. It does not, however, identify or address any specific contention from the defendant's supplemental brief as People v. Kelly requires, nor does it give any reasoning on the four flagged probation-condition and ability-to-pay issues.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

Filed 5/20/24 P. v. Dearborn 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, D082877

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD299446)

MARK CHRISTOPHER DEARBORN,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Polly H. Shamoon, Judge. Affirmed. Mark Christopher Dearborn, in pro. per.; and Pauline E. Villanueva, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Mark Christopher Dearborn entered into a plea agreement representing himself. He pleaded guilty to a violation of Penal Code1 section 417.8 (exhibiting a deadly weapon to a police officer to resist arrest). Dearborn also admitted the use of a deadly weapon. The prosecution agreed 1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code. to not oppose local custody, with credit for time served and dismissal of the remaining counts and allegations. The court suspended the imposition of sentence and granted two years formal probation, subject to a number of conditions. Dearborn filed a timely notice of appeal. His request for a certificate of probable cause was denied. 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 Dearborn the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal. Has responded by filing over 100 pages of briefing and exhibits. The vast bulk of the filing has nothing to do with potential issues in this case. Dearborn’s own description of his filing is well stated in the caption to his “brief” as follows: “APPELLANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF TO APPOINTED COUNSEL’S WENDE BRIEF; DIRECT APPEAL, PRO FORMA – AUDITA QUELERA & PETITION FOR: EXTRAORDINARY WRITS, IN THE NATURE OF: MANDAMUS, PROHIBITION & QUO WARRANTO; A QUASI-QUI TAM BILL OF PARTICULARS & ACTION IN EQUITY.” We have endeavored to review the material. We find nothing presented by Dearborn on his own behalf raises any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. STATEMENT OF FACTS This appeal is from a guilty plea. Dearborn’s statement to the court admitted he exhibited a deadly weapon at a police officer to prevent his arrest.

2 DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has submitted 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 several possible issues for our consideration. 1. Whether the trial court erred in issuing a stay-away order from 515 Washington Street. 2. Whether the trial court erred in imposing a condition of probation requiring Dearborn to take psychotropic medication as prescribed by his doctor. 3. Whether the condition requiring Dearborn not to possess controlled substances was invalid to the extent it would prevent him from using medically prescribed marijuana. 4. Whether the court erred in finding Dearborn had the ability to pay fines and fees as ordered by the trial court. We have reviewed the record for error as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Dearborn on this appeal.

3 DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

O’ROURKE, J.

RUBIN, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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