In re David T. CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. J232499
- Trial judge
- Carlos Armour
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- delinquency
- Panel
- Alex C. McDonald (author), Judith D. McConnell, O'Rourke
Analysis
The trial court accepted David T.'s admission to a felony assault with a deadly weapon, declared him a ward of the court, and placed him on probation with a commitment to a program. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after finding no reasonably arguable issues on independent review.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Acceptance of minor's admission to count 1 (felony assault with a deadly weapon) and declaration as a ward of the court.“David T. admitted count 1 in the wardship petition that alleged: "On or about November 14, 2012, [David T.] did unlawfully commit an assault upon Sedryc Dees-Mueller with a deadly weapon and instrument, in violation of [Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(1)], a felony."” | unclear | not reached | unsure The opinion does not explicitly state a standard of review for the admission itself, as the court performed an independent review under Wende/Anders and found no error. The court noted the admission was made in open court after extensive admonitions, implying it was voluntary and knowing, but did not analyze the specific legal standard for accepting admissions from minors who previously denied guilt. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to review the record for error when no arguable issues are presented.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to file a brief identifying arguable issues or explaining why none exist, and the court to independently review the record.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound in that it follows the Wende/Anders protocol for cases where appointed counsel finds no arguable issues. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' opinion because it fails to address the specific legal question raised by counsel regarding the validity of an admission made after prior denials of guilt, relying instead on a general statement that no reasonably arguable issues were found without analyzing the merits of that specific potential error.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe juvenile court accepted David T.'s admission to a felony assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)), dismissed the remaining count and allegations, declared him a ward under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, and placed him on probation with a Breaking Cycles commitment not to exceed 365 days. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief identifying no arguable issues; the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no reasonably arguable issues, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Acceptance of the minor's admission to count 1 (assault with a deadly weapon) notwithstanding his earlier statements to the probation officer and in a letter to the court denying that he personally stabbed the victim.“However, in open court after extensive admonitions by the trial judge, he admitted he stabbed Mr. Dees-Mueller.” | unclear | correct | agree with court Counsel flagged as a possible but non-arguable issue whether the court could take an admission from a minor who had earlier denied guilt. The opinion notes that after extensive admonitions the minor affirmatively admitted in open court that he stabbed the victim, which supplies a factual basis and removes any Alford-type concern. Given the record described, the court's conclusion that the issue is not arguable is supported, though the opinion's description of the record is brief. |
Declaration of wardship under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 and disposition placing the minor on probation with a Breaking Cycles commitment not to exceed 365 days.“He was declared a ward of the court under section 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, and placed on probation subject to a commitment to Breaking Cycles for a period not to exceed 365 days.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The court conducted an independent Wende review of the entire record and found no reasonably arguable issue regarding the disposition. Nothing in the opinion suggests the disposition exceeded the court's authority or was unsupported, and the minor filed no supplemental brief raising any challenge. |
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 for arguable error.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous must file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, and the court must then examine the record itself.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion follows the Wende/Anders procedure, summarizes the proceedings, identifies the possible issue counsel raised, and explains why it is not arguable given the minor's in-court admission after admonitions. It is minimal but adequate for a no-issue appeal; it does not cite People v. Kelly or In re Kevin S., though neither omission affects the result.
Opinion
Filed 7/25/13 In re David T. 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 DAVID T., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D063280 THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. J232499)
v. DAVID. T., Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Carlos Armour, Judge. Affirmed.
Reed Webb, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
David T. admitted count 1 in the wardship petition that alleged: "On or about November 14, 2012, [David T.] did unlawfully commit an assault upon Sedryc Dees-Mueller with a deadly weapon and instrument, in violation of [Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(1)], a felony." Count 2 and all attendant allegations were dismissed.
He was declared a ward of the court under section 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, and placed on probation subject to a commitment to Breaking Cycles for a period not to exceed 365 days.
David T. appeals. We affirm the judgment.
FACTS
Sedryc Dees-Mueller was seriously injured in a gang fight when stabbed with a knife. David T. initially disclosed to a probation officer and in a letter to the court that he was present at the fight as a member of one of the gangs, but did not personally stab Mr. Dees-Mueller. However, in open court after extensive admonitions by the trial judge, he admitted he stabbed Mr. Dees-Mueller.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the proceedings below.
Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738. Counsel identifies as possible, but not arguable, an issue of "whether the court could proceed with a minor's admission when he denies guilt, both to the probation officer and in a letter addressed to the court, saying that he takes responsibility for the crime on the basis that he was present when it took place and that he now believes that he should not have been there at the time."
2 We granted David T. permission to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf, but he has not responded. A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738 has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues, and David T. has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
McDONALD, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
O'ROURKE, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12