People v. Powers CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D083054 · 2024-06-25 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCN445093
Trial judge: Daniel F. Link
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Laurence D. Rubin (author), O'Rourke, Truc T. Do

Analysis

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

The trial court convicted the defendant of arson of a structure and arson of property, sentencing him to two years in prison on the property count and staying the structure count. On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review under People v. Wende found no arguable issues.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Conviction and sentence for arson of a structure and arson of property “We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders, and considered the issues identified by Powers’s counsel. We conclude there is no arguable issue that would result in a reversal or modification of the conviction.”	unclear	not reached	agree with court The court performed an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende and Anders because appointed counsel raised no arguable issues. The court concluded that no arguable issues existed that would warrant reversal or modification, thereby affirming the judgment without addressing the specific potential issues (jury instructions) identified by counsel in detail.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires independent review of the record by appellate counsel when no arguable issues are raised.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to file a brief identifying potential issues while arguing none are arguable.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for cases where counsel identifies no arguable issues. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' opinion because it fails to explicitly explain why the two specific potential issues identified by counsel (CALCRIM 1515 and 372) were not arguable, relying solely on the general conclusion of no arguable issues.

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 entered judgment on a jury verdict convicting Powers of unlawfully causing a fire of a structure (Pen. Code, § 452, subd. (c)) and arson of property (§ 451, subd. (d)), sentencing him to the middle term of two years on count 2 with the count 1 sentence stayed under section 654. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief raising no arguable issues, Powers filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal conducted an independent review of the record and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Judgment of conviction and sentence (jury verdict on §§ 452(c) and 451(d); two-year middle term with § 654 stay; 201 days custody credits; no fines or fees imposed) reviewed under Wende/Anders independent review “We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders, and considered the issues identified by Powers’s counsel. We conclude there 1 All subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted. 2 is no arguable issue that would result in a reversal or modification of the conviction.”	unclear	correct	agree with court In a Wende appeal where no supplemental brief is filed, the appellate court independently reviews the record for arguable issues; the opinion recites that it did so and found none. The opinion does not describe the record or the substance of the CALCRIM Nos. 1515 and 372 issues in any detail, so there is no basis in the opinion to identify a specific legal error, but the procedure followed is the standard one.
Jury instruction with CALCRIM No. 1515 [Arson] (counsel-identified potential issue) “(1) whether the trial court erred when it instructed the jury in CALCRIM No. 1515 [Arson]”	unclear	correct	unsure The court states it considered this counsel-identified issue and found no arguable issue. The opinion provides no detail about the instruction given or the evidence, so the conclusion cannot be independently tested from the opinion alone; nothing in the opinion suggests error.
Jury instruction with CALCRIM No. 372 [Defendant's Flight] (counsel-identified potential issue) “(2) whether the trial court prejudicially erred when it instructed on CALCRIM No. 372 [Defendant’s Flight]”	unclear	correct	unsure The court considered this issue as part of its independent review and found it not arguable. The opinion does not describe the evidence of flight or any prejudice analysis, so the result is plausible but unverifiable from the opinion itself.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel in a criminal appeal files a brief raising no arguable issues, the Court of Appeal must independently review the entire record to determine whether any arguable issue exists.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous may so advise the court and request to withdraw, accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, after which the court conducts its own examination of the record.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the standard Wende/Anders procedure: counsel filed a no-issue brief identifying potential issues, the defendant was notified of his right to file a supplemental brief and declined, and the court independently reviewed the record and found no arguable issues. The result is defensible, though the opinion offers no substantive discussion of the two instructional issues counsel flagged, so the reasoning cannot be evaluated on its merits from the text.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 6/25/24 P. v. Powers 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, D083054

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN445093)

GREGORY ALEXANDER POWERS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Daniel F. Link, Judge. Affirmed. Laura Vavakin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. I. INTRODUCTION Gregory Alexander Powers appeals from his arson conviction. His appointed appellate counsel filed a 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); Powers did not file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. Our independent review confirms there are no arguable issues on appeal. We affirm. II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND After his arrest for starting a fire in the San Marcos Guitar Center’s rear loading dock, prosecutors charged Powers with arson of a structure, (Pen. Code,1 § 451, subd. (c); count 1), and arson of property (§ 451, subd. (d); count 2). A jury convicted Powers of the lesser included offense of count 1— unlawfully causing a fire of a structure (§ 452, subd. (c)), and count 2. The trial court sentenced Powers to the middle term of two years on count 2 and stayed the sentence on count 1 pursuant to section 654. The trial court awarded Powers 201 days of presentence custody credits, representing 101 days spent in custody and 100 days of section 4019 conduct credits. Finding Powers lacked the financial ability to pay fines and fees, the court did not order him to pay any. Powers filed a timely notice of appeal. His appointed appellate counsel filed a brief raising no arguable issues and asking us to review the record for error under Wende and Anders. Counsel identified two potential issues to assist us in our independent review: (1) whether the trial court erred when it instructed the jury in CALCRIM No. 1515 [Arson]; and (2) whether the trial court prejudicially erred when it instructed on CALCRIM No. 372 [Defendant’s Flight]. Both Powers’s counsel and this court informed Powers of his right to file a supplemental brief, but Powers declined to do so. III. DISCUSSION We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders, and considered the issues identified by Powers’s counsel. We conclude there 1 All subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted. 2 is no arguable issue that would result in a reversal or modification of the conviction. We therefore affirm the judgment. Competent counsel has represented Powers on this appeal. IV. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

RUBIN, J.

WE CONCUR:

O’ROURKE, Acting P. J.

DO, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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