In re Delano M. CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D084760 · 2025-08-21 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from an order
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. J243652
Trial judge: Robert J. Trentacosta
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: delinquency
Panel: Julia C. Kelety (author), O'Rourke, William S. Dato

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T03:42Z · confidence low

The juvenile court committed Delano M. to the Youth Development Academy/Secure Youth Treatment Facility for a baseline term of three years following multiple probation violations and domestic violence offenses. The Court of Appeal affirmed the disposition, finding no abuse of discretion after an independent Wende/Anders review of the record.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Commitment to Youth Development Academy (YDA)/Secure Youth Treatment Facility (SYTF) “We review the juvenile court’s decision to commit a minor to a secure facility for abuse of discretion. (In re Miguel C. (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 899, 908; In re Tyrone O. (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 145, 151.)”	abuse of discretion	not reached	agree with court The appellate court applied the abuse of discretion standard and found that substantial evidence supported the trial court's decision, noting that prior rehabilitation attempts were ineffective and secure commitment was necessary for public safety.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to independently review the record for arguable issues when no issues are identified.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires counsel to file a brief identifying any arguable issues and request the court to review the record.
relied: In re Miguel C. (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 899 — Establishes that the standard of review for a juvenile court's decision to commit a minor to a secure facility is abuse of discretion.
relied: In re Tyrone O. (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 145 — Supports the abuse of discretion standard for reviewing juvenile disposition orders involving secure commitment.
relied: In re Carlos J. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1 — Defines abuse of discretion in this context as occurring when substantial evidence does not support the disposition order.
relied: In re Carl N. (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 423 — Holds that a juvenile court does not abuse its discretion in ordering secure commitment when previous failed rehabilitation attempts show less restrictive alternatives would be ineffective.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the Wende/Anders framework and the abuse of discretion standard. However, it is a brief, unpublished opinion that relies heavily on the trial court's factual findings without detailed analysis of the specific statutory requirements for secure commitment beyond general case law.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:29Z · confidence low

After Delano M. admitted a further probation violation in 2024, the juvenile court denied his request for home supervision with GPS and release to the David's Harp Foundation and committed him to the Youth Development Academy/Secure Youth Treatment Facility for a three-year baseline term, citing eight probation-violation referrals, five involving domestic violence, and the failure of prior less restrictive placements. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief, Delano filed a supplemental brief arguing the placement did not meet his rehabilitative needs, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issue, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Disposition order committing Delano to YDA/SYTF and denying his request for home supervision with GPS monitoring and release to the David's Harp Foundation “We review the juvenile court’s decision to commit a minor to a secure facility for abuse of discretion.”	abuse of discretion	correct	agree with court The opinion applies the correct deferential standard (In re Miguel C.; In re Carlos J.) and the record it recites — an admitted attempted murder, repeated stay-away violations, a hammer assault, firearm possession, eight violation referrals, and failed HOPE and home-supervision placements — is substantial evidence that less restrictive alternatives had proved ineffective, the same rationale accepted in In re Carl N. The result is defensible, though the opinion never mentions Welfare and Institutions Code section 875 or whether the juvenile court made the findings that statute requires before an SYTF commitment, so the analysis is thinner than ideal for a secure commitment of this kind.
Setting of a three-year baseline term of confinement for the SYTF commitment “The court ordered that Delano be committed to YDA/SYTF for a baseline term of three years.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The opinion recites the baseline term but does not separately analyze whether it conformed to the offense-based classification matrix or the maximum-term limits governing SYTF baseline terms under section 875; because the Wende review found no arguable issue, the panel presumably saw no problem, but nothing in the opinion allows a reader to confirm the term's propriety.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed counsel finds no arguable issues, the appellate court must independently review the entire record for error.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous should file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
relied: In re Miguel C. (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 899 — A juvenile court's decision to commit a minor to a secure facility is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
relied: In re Tyrone O. (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 145 — Juvenile commitment decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion, with deference to the juvenile court's broad discretion in fashioning dispositions.
relied: In re Carlos J. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1 — A juvenile court abuses its discretion if substantial evidence does not support the disposition order.
relied: In re Carl N. (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 423 — Prior failed rehabilitation attempts can show that a less restrictive placement would be ineffective and inappropriate and would not adequately promote public safety or serve the interests in punishment and rehabilitation, supporting a secure commitment.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The panel applied the correct abuse-of-discretion standard, performed the independent review Wende requires, and answered the supplemental brief by pointing to the unrebutted evidence of repeated failed placements and continuing violence, which squarely supports the commitment under In re Carl N. It did not, however, discuss Welfare and Institutions Code section 875, the statute that governs SYTF commitments and requires specific findings about less restrictive alternatives and enumerated criteria, nor did it address the three-year baseline term, leaving gaps in an otherwise defensible analysis.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 8/21/25 In re Delano 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 Delano M., a Person Coming D084760 Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. J243652)

v. DELANO M., 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. Delano M. appeals from the juvenile court’s disposition order, committing him to the Youth Development Academy (YDA)/Secure Youth Treatment Facility (SYTF). Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating she has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel identifies one potential issue pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, 744–745 (Anders) and asks the court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Delano the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, which he did. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In April 2022, the juvenile court made a true finding that Delano, a minor, possessed a firearm in violation of Penal Code section 29610. A month later, while engaged in a physical altercation with Elaina C., his girlfriend (and mother of Delano’s son), Delano ran over Elaina’s grandfather with his car, breaking the bones in grandfather’s legs. In September 2022, Delano admitted to one count of attempted murder and one count of inflicting corporal injury on Elaina. At that time the court ordered Delano’s commitment to Healing Opportunities for Personal Empowerment (HOPE). In the ensuing years, on multiple occasions, Delano violated stay-away orders by continuing to be in contact with Elaina and committed other offenses. He was alleged to have violated probation on multiple occasions, including by striking Elaina’s father with a hammer, possession of a firearm, and for further domestic violence against Elaina. Upon the most recent probation violation hearing, in 2024 when he was 20 years old, Delano admitted to failing to remain law abiding, violating the stay away order, and violating conditions of home supervision. At the contested disposition hearing on August 28, 2024, Delano’s counsel requested that he be placed on home supervision with GPS monitoring, and to be released to the David’s Harp Foundation. After hearing the testimony of the probation officer and the director and founder of David’s Harp Foundation, as well as the arguments of counsel, the court 2 denied the request. It noted that Delano had been referred for probation violations eight times, including five times for domestic violence, as a result of “a lengthy, violent, toxic relationship with Elaina that has resulted in essentially an unbreakable pattern of conduct by Delano where he simply cannot or will not stay away [and] the result too often is someone gets hurt.” The court referenced the seriousness of the injuries to Elaina’s grandfather, and the multiple opportunities Delano was given while on probation. The court stated that on previous occasions, he had refrained from committing Delano to YDA: “I wanted Delano to succeed. I like him. He is a bright young man who could have an incredible future. . . . But he chose to be deceitful. He chose to violate the court’s order. . . . I can’t keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result.” The court ordered that Delano be committed to YDA/SYTF for a baseline term of three years. Delano filed a timely notice of appeal. DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel filed a Wende brief, asking this court to independently review the record for error. To assist the court in its review, and in compliance with Anders, counsel has identified the following possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: “Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion in committing appellant to YDA/SYTF because substantial evidence failed to establish less restrictive alternatives were not available and appellant’s mental health needs would be met.”

Delano has also filed a three-page supplemental brief on his own behalf. Delano argues that his current placement fails to address his rehabilitation needs because it limits his contacts with his children, fails to 3 provide adequate mental health services, and has inadequate vocational and educational programs. He contends that his needs and his rehabilitation efforts would be better served by the Transformation House run by the David’s Harp Foundation. We review the juvenile court’s decision to commit a minor to a secure facility for abuse of discretion. (In re Miguel C. (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 899, 908; In re Tyrone O. (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 145, 151.) A trial court abuses its discretion if substantial evidence does not support the disposition order. (In re Carlos J. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1, 5.) In In re Carl N. (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 423, 435, the appellate court concluded that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when it ordered the youth’s commitment to a secure facility, concluding that previous failed rehabilitation attempts showed “a less restrictive placement alternative would be ineffective and inappropriate and would not adequately promote public safety or serve the societal interest in punishment and rehabilitation.” So too here. Delano’s supplemental brief does not demonstrate that the court abused its discretion. It does not address the substantial evidence that was before the court in support of its conclusion that prior efforts at his rehabilitation had been ineffective or that secure commitment was needed to promote public safety. Further, although Delano asserts that he had “previous success in similar settings,” he does not explain why such success did not prevent him from reoffending. In sum, we have reviewed the record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Delano on this appeal.

4 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

KELETY, J.

WE CONCUR:

O’ROURKE, Acting P. J.

DATO, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Carl N. D050037 · 2008-03-06
People v. Tyrone O. H004095 · 1989-03-20
People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12