People v. Oceguera CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D082566 · 2024-06-12 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of Imperial County · No. JCF005237
Trial judge: William D. Quan
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: delinquency
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Michele M. Castillo, Julia C. Kelety

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:12Z · confidence low

The trial court sentenced the defendant to seven years in prison after he withdrew a plea agreement and entered an open plea to three counts of sexual offenses. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende and finding no arguable issues for reversal.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Sentencing to seven years in prison (six years for count 1 plus one consecutive year for count 3) “Whether the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing Oceguera to prison for seven years.”	abuse of discretion	not reached	unsure The appellate court did not reach the merits of the sentencing issue because it was raised only as a possible issue in the Wende brief, and the court’s independent review of the record failed to identify any arguable issues for reversal. The court affirmed the judgment without analyzing the specific sentencing arguments.

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 none.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires counsel to identify arguable issues and the court to review the record when counsel believes the appeal is frivolous.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for reviewing appeals where counsel identifies no arguable issues. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' opinion because it fails to address the specific sentencing issue identified by counsel in the Wende brief, providing no reasoning for why the identified issue was not arguable.

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 Imperial County Superior Court found Oceguera competent, accepted his open plea to forcible oral copulation, forcible sexual penetration, and forcible sexual battery, and sentenced him to seven years in prison (middle term of six years on count 1, a consecutive one year on count 3, and a stayed middle term on count 2 under section 654). On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief identifying sentencing discretion as a possible issue, the defendant 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
Imposition of an aggregate seven-year prison sentence (middle term on count 1, consecutive one-year term on count 3, count 2 stayed under section 654) “Whether the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing Oceguera to prison for seven years.”	abuse of discretion	correct	agree with court The court imposed presumptive middle terms, which under section 1170(b) require no aggravating findings, and the consecutive one-year term on count 3 equals one-third the middle term for forcible sexual battery; staying count 2 under section 654 favored the defendant. Nothing in the described record suggests the sentence was arbitrary, and the appellate court's Wende review found no arguable issue, though the opinion supplies no sentencing-hearing detail.
Finding that Oceguera was competent to proceed after defense counsel declared a doubt “Ultimately a hearing was held and the court determined Oceguera was competent to proceed with the case.”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion states only that a hearing was held and competency was found; it gives no description of the evidence or the trial court's reasoning. The appellate court's independent review found no arguable issue, but the opinion provides too little to evaluate the finding independently.
Acceptance of the open guilty plea to all three counts after withdrawal of the earlier negotiated plea “Oceguera entered an open plea to all three counts of the information.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The trial court properly allowed withdrawal of the first plea when it declined to honor the 180-day custody limit, consistent with section 1192.5, and later accepted an open plea; the opinion recites no defect in advisements or factual basis. The Wende review found nothing arguable, and the sparse record gives no reason to disagree.

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 before affirming.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal frivolous must file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, which counsel did by identifying the sentencing issue.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the Wende/Anders procedure, identifies the possible issue counsel raised, notes the defendant filed nothing, and affirms after independent review; the result is defensible and procedurally regular. It does not, however, explain why the seven-year sentence was within discretion or address the competency finding beyond reciting it, leaving the reader to take the independent review on faith.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 6/12/24 P. v. Oceguera 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, D082566

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. JCF005237)

NICOLAS HERNANDEZ OCEGUERA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Imperial County, William D. Quan, Judge. Affirmed. Anita Jog, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Appellant Nicolas Hernandez Oceguera was charged with forcible oral copulation of Jane Doe 1 (Pen. Code,1 § 287, subd. (c)(2)(A); count 1); sexual penetration of Jane Doe 1 by force (§ 289, subd. (a)(1)(A); count 2); and sexual battery by force on Jane Doe 2 (§ 243.4, subd. (a)).

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code. Oceguera later entered into a plea agreement which called for a guilty plea to count 1 with a grant of probation and a 180-day limit of potential custody. About a month later, the trial court concluded it could not accept the proposed sentencing limitation. Oceguera was allowed to withdraw his guilty plea. Thereafter, defense counsel expressed a doubt as to Oceguera’s competency. Ultimately a hearing was held and the court determined Oceguera was competent to proceed with the case. Oceguera entered an open plea to all three counts of the information. At the sentencing hearing, the court imposed a middle-term sentence of six years for count 1 plus a consecutive one-year sentence for count 3. The court imposed and then stayed a middle-term sentence for count 2 under section 654. Oceguera 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 review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Oceguera the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not respondent. STATEMENT OF FACTS Appellate counsel has submitted a brief summary of the evidence presented in the preliminary hearing in this case. We will incorporate the summary into this opinion to provide some context for this appeal. On September 22, 2021, Jane Doe 1 went to Oceguera’s home-office for a massage, as she had done every six months or so for 10 years. As she was lying on her stomach, the massage progressed as normal for 20 to 30 minutes before she felt Oceguera trying to pull her exercise shorts down. He stopped 2 when she shrieked, but five minutes later, he forcefully pulled her shorts down, spread her legs, and pushed his face into her buttocks and vaginal area. She felt his finger inside her vagina and his tongue on her buttocks and vaginal area. She got up as quickly as she could and left. As she left, Oceguera tried to tell her she should not be mad and tried to persuade her to come back. She did not give Oceguera permission to do what he did and he had never done anything like that before. On October 6, 2021, Jane Doe 2 saw a news story about Jane Doe 1 and called police to report her own incident with Oceguera. She had been going to Oceguera for massages once a month for four to six years. A couple of months prior to October 6, Oceguera told her to sit on the edge of the bed and hang onto his neck for her massage. As he massaged her shoulders, she felt him pressing her chest against his chest and pushing his penis against her crotch area. She tried to push him away from her breasts, but he was pulling her back towards him. She did not want this and was afraid. When she told Oceguera she was suffocating, Oceguera said he was almost done and then let her go after a few minutes. She quickly paid him and left. DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to independently 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 a possible issue for our consideration: Whether the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing Oceguera to prison for seven years. 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 Oceguera on this appeal.

3 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

KELETY, J.

CASTILLO, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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