People v. Kelly

• Decision Date: 27 November 2006
• Docket Number: No. S133114.,S133114.
• Citation: 146 P.3d 547,40 Cal.4th 106,51 Cal.Rptr.3d 98
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Gary Rogers KELLY, Defendant and Appellant.

51 Cal.Rptr.3d 98

40 Cal.4th 106

146 P.3d 547

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Gary Rogers KELLY, Defendant and Appellant.

No. S133114.

Supreme Court of California.

November 27, 2006.

J. Courtney Shevelson, Carmel, under appointment by the Supreme Court, and Thea Greenhalgh, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Manuel M. Medeiros, State Solicitor General, Donald E. de Nicola, Deputy State Solicitor General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Assistant Attorney General, Eric D. Share and Kelly M. Croxton, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

GEORGE, C.J.

Article VI, section 14, of the California Constitution provides that "[decisions of the Supreme Court and the courts of appeal that determine causes shall be in writing with reasons stated." In this case, we consider what this constitutional mandate requires in a criminal appeal in which defense counsel files a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 158 Cal.Rptr. 839, 600 P.2d 1071 (Wende), raising no issue for the appellate court's review, the defendant files supplemental arguments, and the appellate court identifies no arguable issue.

We conclude that a decision affirming the judgment in a Wende appeal disposes of a cause within the meaning of article VI, section 14 of the California Constitution, and therefore must be in writing with reasons stated. Because the defendant in a Wende appeal has a right to file supplemental contentions, the Court of Appeal must consider these contentions in the course of disposing of the cause. Therefore, to comply with the constitutional mandate, the opinion must reflect the defendant's contentions and the reasons that they fail. We further conclude that, in light of Wende's requirement that Courts of Appeal review the entire record, significant efficiency in the processing of subsequent proceedings, including future habeas corpus proceedings, can be achieved if the Courts of Appeal include in their Wende opinions a brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case, the crimes of which the defendant was convicted, and the punishment imposed. Therefore, in the exercise of our supervisory power over the courts of this state, we direct the Courts of Appeal to include this information in their opinions in Wende appeals. Finally, we encourage the Courts of Appeal to include in their Wende opinions any other information from the record that they anticipate will be relevant in further challenges to the judgment.

The Court of Appeal's opinion in the present case does not satisfy the constitutional requirement of a decision in writing with reasons stated. Rather than reversing the judgment and remanding the matter to that court, however, we have undertaken a review of the record and affirm the judgment with reasons stated.

I.

The facts of the underlying case are fairly straightforward. On July 21, 2003, an off-duty San Jose police officer witnessed defendant driving a vehicle in a reckless and erratic manner. The officer followed defendant and called for backup assistance. A uniformed officer arrived just as defendant parked his car. Defendant resisted the two officers and was handcuffed. After refusing to breathe into a preliminary alcohol-screening device, he was transported to the police department's alcohol investigation bureau, where he declined tests of his blood, breath, or urine.

At trial, the two police officers testified concerning defendant's conduct and appearance, and an expert testified regarding the effects of alcohol on the human body. In addition, the parties stipulated that defendant had suffered a felony conviction in December 1996 for driving under the influence of an alcoholic beverage in violation of Vehicle Code section 23152. The jury found defendant guilty of one felony count of driving under the influence of alcohol after having been convicted of a felony within 10 years (Veh.Code, §§ 23152, 23550.5, subd. (a)) and one misdemeanor count of resisting, delaying, or obstructing an officer (Pen.Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)). The trial court imposed the midterm sentence of two years' imprisonment for the felony, and a six-month term for the misdemeanor to be served concurrently with the felony sentence.

Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal, and the Court of Appeal appointed counsel to represent him. Appointed counsel, having found no arguable issue in his own review of the record, filed a brief pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, 158 Cal.Rptr. 839, 600 P.2d 1071, setting forth the facts of the case and requesting that the appellate court review the entire record on appeal. The brief indicated that counsel would provide further briefing if requested by the court, but raised no specific issue. Both counsel and the Court of Appeal advised defendant of his right to file a supplemental brief to bring to the court's attention any issue he believed deserved review. Defendant filed a letter in the Court of Appeal setting forth 15 points for the court's consideration.

We set forth in its entirety the opinion rendered by the Court of Appeal:

"Following a jury trial, defendant was found guilty of one felony count of driving under the influence of alcohol with a felony prior within 10 years [citation; fn. omitted], and one misdemeanor count of resisting, delaying, or obstructing an officer [citation]. As to count one, the jury found true the allegation that defendant willfully refused a peace officer's request to submit to chemical test [citation].

"We appointed counsel to represent defendant in this court. Counsel filed an opening brief that stated the case and the facts, but raised no specific issues. Defense counsel requested we review the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 158 Cal.Rptr. 839, 600 P.2d 1071.

"We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf within 30 days. We have read and considered defendant's written argument.

"Pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, 158 Cal.Rptr. 839, 600 P.2d 1071, we have reviewed the entire record and have concluded that there are no arguable issues on appeal.

"Disposition

"The judgment is affirmed."

Defendant then filed, in propria persona, a petition in this court seeking review of the judgment rendered by the Court of Appeal, based on its failure to address the contentions set forth in his supplemental brief. We granted defendant's petition, appointed new counsel to represent him, and limited briefing and argument to the issue of what is required of the Court of Appeal in this context under article VI, section 14, of the California Constitution.

II.

In order to construe present article VI, section 14 of the California Constitution, we first review the history of that provision. The California Constitution of 1849 established a Supreme Court consisting of a Chief Justice and two associate justices, and granted the court appellate jurisdiction in a variety of cases. (Cal. Const, of 1849, art. VI, §§ 1, 2, 4.) Amendments to the Constitution in 1862 expanded the court's membership to include a Chief Justice and four associate justices, and described a wider range of cases in which the court had appellate jurisdiction. (Id., art. VI, §§ 2, 4, as amended in 1862.) As amended, the Constitution continued to require the Legislature to provide for publication of the court's decisions as the Legislature deemed expedient (id., art. VI, § 12), but did not impose any requirement upon the court to provide reasons for its decisions.

In 1854, the Legislature enacted a statute requiring that "[a]ll decisions given upon an appeal in any appella[te] Court of this State, shall be given in writing, with the reason therefor, and filed with the Clerk of the Court." (Stats.1854, ch. 54, § 69, p. 72.) This court held in Houston v. Williams (1859) 13 Cal. 24, 1859 WL 939 (Houston) that the Legislature was without authority to require the judicial branch to provide reasons for its decisions in written opinions. "The Legislature can no more require this Court to state the reasons of its decisions, than this Court can require, for the validity of the statutes, that the Legislature shall accompany them with the reasons for their enactment. The principles of law settled are to be extracted from the records of the cases in which the decisions are rendered. The reports are full of adjudged cases, in which opinions were never delivered. The facts are stated by the Reporter, with the points arising thereon, and are followed by the judgments rendered, and yet no one ever doubted that the Courts, in the instances mentioned, were discharging their entire constitutional obligations. [Citations.]" (Id. at p. 25.)

The decision in Houston, supra, 13 Cal. 24, acknowledged that the reasons underlying the court's judgments are "of great importance in the information they impart as to the principles of law which govern the Court, and should guide litigants." (Id. at p. 26.) It added that "right-minded Judges, in important cases—when the pressure of other business will permit— will give such opinions. It is not every case, however, which will justify the expenditure of time necessary to write an opinion. Many cases involve no new principles, and are appealed only for delay. It can serve no purpose of public good to repeat elementary principles of law which have never been questioned for centuries." (Ibid.)

By the time the state's second Constitutional Convention was convened in 1878, the Supreme Court's workload was overwhelming. There was no provision in either the original 1849 Constitution or the amendments of 1862 for intermediate courts of appeal—all appeals from the "district courts," as the trial courts of general jurisdiction were called, went directly to the Supreme Court. During the four years preceding the Constitutional Convention of 1878-1879, the court had...