In re Parsa B. CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from an order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. J242147
- Trial judge
- Robert J. Trentacosta
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- delinquency
- Panel
- Julia C. Kelety (author), Laurence D. Rubin, William S. Dato
Analysis
The juvenile court denied Parsa B.'s request to reduce his baseline term of confinement by six months, instead reducing it by 35 days. The Court of Appeal affirmed the order after an independent review of the record pursuant to Wende and Anders, finding no reasonably arguable issues for reversal.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Order denying request to reduce baseline term of confinement by six months and reducing it by 35 days“The juvenile court denied the request and reduced the term by 35 days, at probation’s recommendation.” | abuse of discretion | not reached | unsure The appellate court did not explicitly analyze the merits of the trial court's decision under the abuse of discretion standard. Instead, it relied on the Wende/Anders procedure, stating it had reviewed the entire record and found 'no reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal.' Therefore, the court affirmed without providing specific reasoning on the trial court's exercise of discretion. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to file a brief identifying potential issues and for the court to independently review the record when counsel finds no arguable issues.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to file a brief identifying potential issues and for the court to independently review the record to ensure no arguable issues are overlooked.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for handling appeals where counsel finds no arguable issues. However, it provides no substantive legal analysis of the trial court's decision, relying solely on the court's independent review of the record to affirm.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionAfter a Welfare and Institutions Code section 875 progress review hearing, the juvenile court declined the minor's request to reduce his 18-month baseline Secure Youth Treatment Facility term by six months and instead reduced it by 35 days as probation recommended. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief, the minor 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of the minor's request to reduce his baseline SYTF confinement term by six months, with a 35-day reduction instead“Did the juvenile court abuse its discretion by denying appellant’s request to reduce his baseline confinement term by six months?” | abuse of discretion | correct | agree with court Section 875 progress-review reductions are discretionary and tied to the youth's progress; the record recited in the opinion shows an extensive history of new offenses, probation violations, and absconding, and the court followed probation's recommendation. On that record a 35-day rather than six-month reduction is within the court's discretion, and Wende review found nothing arguable. The opinion does not, however, discuss the facts of the review hearing itself, so the assessment rests on the general record summarized. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel finds no arguable issues, the reviewing court 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 frivolous may so advise the court but must file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, and the court must then decide whether the appeal is wholly frivolous.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court followed the Wende/Anders procedure, identified the issue counsel flagged, independently reviewed the record, and reached a defensible affirmance given the minor's extensive history of violations. It did not address whether the appeal became moot once the minor was released from custody on April 21, 2024 (before the opinion issued), nor whether full Wende review is required for a post-dispositional review order rather than a first appeal of right, though conducting the review anyway caused no prejudice.
Opinion
Filed 12/5/24 In re Parsa B. 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
In re PARSA B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D083870 THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. J242147) v. PARSA B., Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Robert J. Trentacosta, Judge. Affirmed. Marta I. Stanton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. This appeal arises from a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 juvenile delinquency proceeding. The minor, Parsa B., appeals from an order of the juvenile court after a review hearing in which the court declined his request to reduce the baseline term of his commitment by 6 months, and instead reduced it by 35 days. Parsa’s appointed counsel has filed a brief under the procedures set forth in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441– 443 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, 744 (Anders). Parsa was afforded the opportunity to file a supplemental brief but has not done so in the time allotted. Having independently reviewed the entire record in accordance with Wende and Anders and having found no reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal, we affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS On May 30, 2019, Parsa admitted to one count of assault with a deadly weapon under Penal Code1 section 245, subdivision (a)(1). The charge stemmed from an incident in which Parsa threw a skateboard at another minor, striking him in the lower back. The juvenile court adjudged Parsa a ward of the court, placed him at home with his parents, and ordered probation with a number of restrictions. On September 3, 2019, Parsa admitted to several violations of his probation, including failing to participate in a psychological evaluation or substance abuse counseling, testing positive for alcohol, and violating curfew. On September 17, 2019, the juvenile court ordered Parsa committed to Urban Camp for a period not to exceed 85 days. On January 10, 2020, Parsa admitted to one count of petty theft in violation of section 484. The People alleged that Parsa stole two bottles of alcohol from a convenience store. On January 27, 2020, the juvenile court placed Parsa under the supervision of a probation officer, with a GPS tracker. The court also ordered but stayed a commitment to Urban Camp for a period not to exceed 130 days. In a trailing matter, on February 7, 2020, Parsa admitted to probation violations of testing positive for controlled substances 1 All further unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 and violating curfew. On March 3, 2020, the court ordered Parsa committed to juvenile hall for a period of 8 days. On June 5, 2020, Parsa admitted to one count of threatening a public officer in violation of section 71, a felony. The People alleged that Parsa threatened a police officer during a transport, after testing positive for controlled substances and leaving his treatment program without permission. The juvenile court ordered Parsa committed to Urban Camp for a period not to exceed 130 days. On August 14, 2020, the juvenile court ordered that Parsa be placed in a suitable licensed residential treatment facility (STRTP). Parsa absconded from the STRTP after approximately one month. On October 22, 2020, Parsa admitted violating probation, and the juvenile court again placed him in an STRTP. Parsa once again absconded from the STRTP. On December 18, 2020, Parsa admitted to one count of resisting an executive officer in violation of section 69, a felony. The juvenile court ordered Parsa committed to Urban Camp for a period not to exceed 250 days. Parsa was released on May 7, 2021, and placed back under the supervision of probation. On September 28, 2021, Parsa admitted one count of threatening a public officer in violation of section 71. The People alleged that Parsa solicited someone to buy him a weapon, and when police contacted him, he had a concealed dagger and threatened to get violent with the officer. The juvenile court placed Parsa on home supervision with GPS tracking. The court also imposed but stayed a commitment to the HOPE (Healing Opportunities for Personal Empowerment) program, and specifically noted in the written order that it was giving Parsa one last opportunity before committing him to HOPE.
3 On February 7, 2022, Parsa admitted one count of burglary in violation of section 459, a felony, and one count of possession of a concealed firearm by a minor in violation of section 29610, also a felony. The juvenile court ordered Parsa committed to the HOPE Program for a period not to exceed 480 days. On April 26, 2022, Parsa admitted to one count of vandalism, in violation of section 594, subdivisions (a), (b)(1), a felony. The juvenile court ordered a new term of commitment in the HOPE program, for a period not to exceed 480 days. On July 18, 2022, while still committed to the HOPE program, Parsa admitted to one count of assault in violation of section 245, subdivision (a)(4), a felony and a Welfare and Institutions Code section 707, subdivision (b) offense. At the September 14, 2022 dispositional hearing, the juvenile court again ordered Parsa committed to the HOPE Program for a period not to exceed 480 days. On December 13, 2022, the juvenile court ordered Parsa released from custody early, on December 23, 2022. On January 12, 2023, Parsa admitted violating his probation. The People alleged that he assaulted a minor victim and had a BB gun in his possession upon his arrest. Although Parsa was over 18 at the time of the offense, the People declined to file charges in the adult case. At the January 24, 2023 dispositional hearing, the juvenile court ordered Parsa committed for a baseline term of confinement of 18 months to the Youth Development Academy (YDA), Secured Youth Treatment Facility (SYTF). At the January 22, 2024 hearing from which Parsa appeals, he asked the court to reduce his term of confinement at YDA/SYTF by six months, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 875. The juvenile court denied the request and reduced the term by 35 days, at probation’s 4 recommendation. Parsa completed his Secure Track commit and was released from custody on April 21, 2024. 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 identified the following possible issue that we considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Did the juvenile court abuse its discretion by denying appellant’s request to reduce his baseline confinement term by six months? We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Parsa B. on this appeal. DISPOSITION The January 22, 2024 order of the juvenile court is affirmed.
KELETY, J.
WE CONCUR:
DATO, Acting P. J.
RUBIN, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12