In re Jose C. CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D083971 · 2025-05-13 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of Imperial County · No. JJL000952
Trial judge: William D. Quan
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Judith D. McConnell, Buchanan

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T03:48Z · confidence low

The juvenile court declared the minor a ward of the court and placed him in the Short-Term Residential Therapeutic Program (STRTP) for a maximum of three years. The Court of Appeal affirmed the dispositional order after an independent review of the record pursuant to a Wende brief.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Dispositional order declaring the minor a ward of the court and placing him in STRTP “The court found it would not be safe to place the Minor in a less restrictive program and thus placed him in the Short-Term Residential Therapeutic Program (STRTP) for a maximum confinement of three years.”	abuse of discretion	not reached	unsure The appellate court stated it independently reviewed the record and found no arguable issues for reversal, but did not explicitly analyze the abuse of discretion standard or the merits of the placement decision in the text provided.
Calculation and determination of the maximum period of confinement “We have independently reviewed the record for error as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The court listed the calculation and determination of the maximum confinement as potential issues but concluded no arguable issues were found without providing specific legal analysis or applying a standard of review to these specific points.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires independent review of the record by the appellate court when appointed counsel files a brief stating no arguable issues exist.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to withdraw from representation after filing a brief identifying potential issues, requiring independent appellate review.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound in following the Wende/Anders protocol by conducting an independent review and affirming the judgment. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' opinion because it lists specific potential issues (abuse of discretion, calculation of confinement) but fails to provide any substantive legal analysis or reasoning for why those issues were meritless, relying solely on the conclusion that no arguable issues were found.

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 Imperial County juvenile court, after the Minor admitted an assault and firearm offenses while on probation, declared him a ward, found a less restrictive placement unsafe, placed him in a Short-Term Residential Therapeutic Program with a three-year maximum confinement, and awarded 396 days of custody credits. On appeal, counsel filed a Wende brief, the Minor filed nothing, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Declaring the Minor a ward of the court and placing him in the STRTP after finding a less restrictive placement would not be safe “The court found it would not be safe to place the Minor in a less restrictive program and thus placed him in the Short-Term Residential Therapeutic Program (STRTP) for a maximum confinement of three years.”	abuse of discretion	correct	unsure Counsel framed the issue as abuse of discretion and the court found no arguable error on independent review, but the opinion recites almost no facts about the Minor's history or the placement evidence, so the ruling cannot be independently evaluated from the opinion alone. The result is consistent with the Minor's repeated offenses while on probation, which ordinarily supports a more restrictive placement.
Setting the maximum period of confinement at three years and awarding 396 days of custody credits “The Minor was given 396 days of custody credits.”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion identifies the maximum confinement calculation as a potential issue and finds no error, but it does not state the offenses' maximum terms, whether prior sustained petitions were aggregated, or how the credits were computed, so the correctness of the figures cannot be verified from the opinion. Nothing in the opinion suggests the figures are facially wrong.

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 error before affirming.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal frivolous may so advise the court and identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the standard Wende/Anders procedure, offers the Minor a chance to file a supplemental brief, and states it independently reviewed the record, which is the required process for a no-issue appeal. It is thin, however: the factual and procedural recitation is minimal, and the statutory descriptions appear mismatched (section 245, subdivision (a)(2) is assault with a firearm, not assault causing great bodily injury, and section 25850 concerns carrying a loaded firearm rather than a concealed weapon), which the opinion does not reconcile.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 5/13/25 In re Jose C. 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 Jose C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D083971 THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. JJL000952)

v. JOSE C., Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Imperial County, William D. Quan, Judge. Affirmed. Jennifer M. French, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. This appeal arises from a dispositional order of the juvenile court. Jose C. (Minor) was on probation from a Riverside County juvenile court disposition in 2023 when the Minor admitted possessing a stolen vehicle (Pen. Code,1 § 496d, subd. (a)) and several firearm-related misdemeanors. The court placed the Minor on probation. In January 2024, the Minor admitted an assault causing great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)), and carrying a concealed weapon (§ 25850, subd. (c)(6)). The Minor’s case was then transferred to Imperial County for disposition. Following a dispositional hearing, the Imperial County juvenile court declared the Minor to be a ward of the court. The court found it would not be safe to place the Minor in a less restrictive program and thus placed him in the Short-Term Residential Therapeutic Program (STRTP) for a maximum confinement of three years. The Minor was given 396 days of custody credits. The Minor filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 indicating counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to independently review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered the Minor the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. STATEMENT OF FACTS The Minor admitted he committed an assault and that he had carried a concealed and loaded firearm.

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. 2 DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to independently review the record for error. Counsel has also identified several possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738.) 1. Whether the court abused its discretion in declaring the Minor to be a ward of the court and placing him in the STRTP program. 2. Whether the juvenile court properly calculated the maximum period of confinement. 3. Whether the juvenile court properly determined the maximum period of confinement. We have independently reviewed the record for error as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented the Minor on this appeal. DISPOSITION The juvenile court’s dispositional order is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

BUCHANAN, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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