In re J.M. CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D083871 · 2025-03-03 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from an order
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. J244179
Trial judge: Richard R. Monroy
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: delinquency
Panel: Joan K. Irion (author), Judith D. McConnell, Michele M. Castillo

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T03:52Z · confidence low

The juvenile court reduced the appellant's baseline term of confinement in a secure youth treatment facility by 27 days following a progress review hearing. The Court of Appeal affirmed the order after conducting an independent review of the record under the Wende/Anders protocol, finding no reversible error.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Reduction of baseline term of confinement by 27 days “The court adopted the probation department’s recommendation and ordered a 27-day reduction.”	abuse of discretion	not reached	unsure The opinion states that counsel raised no claims of error and the court conducted an independent review of the entire record. While counsel listed the issue of whether the court abused its discretion in the reduction amount, the court did not explicitly analyze the merits of this specific claim or apply the abuse of discretion standard to it in the text; it simply concluded there were no grounds for reversal after reviewing the record.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Appellate court must conduct a review of the entire record whenever appointed counsel submits a brief which raises no specific issues.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who raises no claims of error must file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly identifies the Wende/Anders obligation to review the record when counsel raises no issues. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' opinion because it lists specific issues suggested by counsel (including abuse of discretion regarding the reduction) but fails to provide any substantive legal analysis or reasoning addressing those specific issues, merely stating a conclusion of no reversible error.

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

After J.M. admitted a robbery and two assaults with a firearm committed at age 15, the juvenile court committed him to a secure youth treatment facility with a two-year baseline term, ordered $11,740 in stipulated restitution, and at a later progress review hearing reduced the baseline term by 27 days rather than the 90 days his counsel requested. On appeal from the reduction order, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief raising no claims of error, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no prejudicial error, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Commitment to a secure youth treatment facility with a two-year baseline term of confinement “Did the court abuse its discretion . . . when it committed [J.M.] to a secure youth treatment facility, with a baseline confinement term of two years?”	abuse of discretion	correct	agree with court The two-year baseline is the minimum of the 2-to-4-year range prescribed by California Rules of Court, rule 5.806(d) for robbery and assault with a firearm, and the offenses (a robbery and a shooting causing life-threatening injury) readily support a secure commitment under Welfare and Institutions Code section 875. The opinion also does not note that this disposition order predated the appealed order by 13 months, which likely placed it outside the scope of this appeal in any event.
Restitution award of $11,740 to victim I.M. “At that hearing, J.M. stipulated the amount of restitution owed I.M. was $11,740, and the court ordered restitution in that amount.”	substantial evidence	correct	agree with court J.M. stipulated to the amount, which is sufficient evidentiary support and forfeits any sufficiency challenge; the award was also part of the earlier disposition proceedings rather than the order appealed from.
Reduction of the baseline term of confinement by only 27 days at the progress review hearing “The court adopted the probation department’s recommendation and ordered a 27-day reduction.”	abuse of discretion	correct	agree with court Section 875, subdivision (e)(1)(A) gives the juvenile court discretion whether and how much to reduce the baseline term after considering counsel's and probation's recommendations; adopting the probation department's recommendation over the People's opposition is a reasoned exercise of that discretion. The opinion does not describe the underlying behavioral record, so the conclusion rests on the court's independent review rather than facts recited in the opinion.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed counsel files a brief raising no specific issues, the appellate court must independently review the entire record for arguable issues.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds no meritorious issues must file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
missed: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Wende independent review is constitutionally required only in a first appeal of right; in appeals from postjudgment orders the court is not required to conduct Wende review, though it retains discretion to do so.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court followed the Wende/Anders procedure, considered the three issues counsel flagged, and reasonably found no arguable error given the minimum-range baseline term, the stipulated restitution, and the discretionary nature of the baseline reduction. It did not address whether Wende review was required for an appeal from a post-disposition reduction order under Delgadillo, nor whether the disposition and restitution orders were even reviewable on this appeal, but those gaps do not affect the result since the court conducted the review and found no error.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 2/28/25 In re J.M. 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 J.M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D083871 THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. J244179)

v. J.M., Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Richard R. Monroy, Judge. Affirmed. Jared G. Coleman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

J.M. appeals the order reducing the baseline term of confinement in a secure youth treatment facility the juvenile court had set after J.M. admitted he committed a robbery and two assaults with a firearm when he was 15 years old. Counsel appointed to represent J.M. on appeal has filed a brief in which he raised no claims of error and asked us to review the record independently for reversible error. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Having reviewed the record and found no prejudicial error, we affirm. BACKGROUND Audiovisual recordings on 15-year-old J.M.’s cell phone captured him beating M.C., threatening M.C., removing M.C.’s necklace and pants, and leaving with the loot. I.M. contacted D.H. and R.B. and told them what had happened to M.C. When the three arrived at the scene of the incident involving J.M. and M.C., J.M. and four others were waiting for them. Video surveillance captured J.M. and one of his companions emerging from behind the fence with handguns and firing multiple shots at I.M., D.H., and R.B. I.M. sustained life-threatening gunshot wounds that required surgery. R.B. and D.H. sustained non-life-threatening gunshot wounds. The People filed a petition against J.M. under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 alleging: five counts of attempted murder (counts 1–5; Pen. Code, §§ 21a, 187, subd. (a)) (one count each for I.M., D.H., and R.B., and two counts for John Does), with firearm enhancements on all counts (id., §§ 12022.5, subd. (a), 12022.53, subd. (d)) and great bodily injury enhancements on the counts concerning I.M., D.H., and R.B. (id., § 12022.7, subds. (a), (b)); five counts of assault with a semiautomatic firearm (counts 6– 10; id., § 245, subd. (b)) (one count each for I.M., D.H., and R.B., and two counts for John Does), with great bodily injury enhancements on the counts concerning I.M., D.H., and R.B. (id., § 12022.7, subds. (a), (b)); robbery of M.C. (count 11; id., § 211); and assault on M.C. by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (count 12; id., § 245, subd. (a)(4)). The People 2 later amended the petition to add two counts of assault with a firearm (counts 13 & 14; id., § 245, subd. (a)(2)) with great bodily injury enhancements (id., § 12022.7, subd. (a)), one for the assault on I.M. and the other for the assault on R.B. The People asked the juvenile court to declare J.M. a ward of the court and to find the allegations true. At a readiness hearing, J.M. waived his trial-related constitutional rights and admitted the allegations of robbery (count 11) and assault with a firearm with great bodily injury enhancements (counts 13 & 14). The juvenile court sustained the petition as to those allegations, granted the People’s motion to dismiss the other allegations, and declared J.M. a ward of the court. At the disposition hearing, the juvenile court ordered J.M. confined at a secure youth treatment facility for a baseline term of two years and set a restitution status review hearing. (See Welf. & Inst. Code, § 875, subd. (b)(1) [when juvenile court commits ward to secure youth treatment facility, court must set baseline term of confinement]; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.806(d) [prescribing baseline term of 2 to 4 years for robbery and assault with a firearm].) At that hearing, J.M. stipulated the amount of restitution owed I.M. was $11,740, and the court ordered restitution in that amount. At a progress review hearing held 13 months after the disposition hearing, J.M.’s counsel requested a reduction of at least 90 days in his baseline term of confinement. (See Welf. & Inst. Code, § 875, subd. (e)(1)(A) [court may order reduction of baseline term at progress review hearing].) The People opposed that request. The court adopted the probation department’s recommendation and ordered a 27-day reduction. (See ibid. [court must consider recommendations of counsel and probation department]; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.806(c) [probation department must make periodic 3 recommendations on any reduction to baseline term based on ward’s positive behavior].) DISCUSSION J.M.’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he summarized the facts and proceedings, raised no claims of error, and asked us to conduct an independent review of the record for reversible error. (See Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441 [appellate court must “conduct a review of the entire record whenever appointed counsel submits a brief which raises no specific issues”].) To assist us in conducting that review, counsel listed the following issues for consideration: 1. “Did the court abuse its discretion . . . when it committed [J.M.] to a secure youth treatment facility, with a baseline confinement term of two years?” 2. “Was there sufficient evidence to support the court’s restitution award of $11,740 . . . ?” 3. “Did the court abuse its discretion by reducing the baseline term of [J.M’s] confinement . . . by only 27 days?” (See Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, 744 (Anders) [appointed counsel who raises no claims of error must file a “brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal”].) We advised J.M. he could file a supplemental brief, but he did not. We have considered the issues suggested by counsel and reviewed the entire record, as required by Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, and Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and determined there are no grounds for reversal or modification of the order on appeal. We have also determined J.M. received competent representation on appeal.

4 DISPOSITION The order reducing J.M.’s baseline term of confinement is affirmed.

IRION, J.

WE CONCUR:

MCCONNELL, P. J.

CASTILLO, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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