In re Christian W. CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D084689 · 2025-12-15 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a dispositional order
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. J245326
Trial judge: Richard R. Monroy
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: delinquency
Panel: Judith D. McConnell (author), Michele M. Castillo

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T03:35Z · confidence low

The trial court found the minor violated probation terms regarding contact with a victim and drug use, and committed him to the Urban Camp program. The Court of Appeal affirmed the order after an independent review under People v. Wende found no arguable issues for reversal.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of defense motion to exclude statements regarding the THC drug test “Whether the court abused its discretion when it denied the defense motion to exclude all statements regarding the THC drug test.”	abuse of discretion	not reached	unsure The appellate court identified this as a potential issue for review but concluded after independent review that it did not constitute an arguable issue for reversal, effectively finding no error without detailed analysis.
Permitting probation officer to testify about home supervision team seeing the Minor contacting the victim “Whether the court erred in permitting the probation officer to testify about the home supervision team seeing the Minor contacting the victim.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The appellate court listed this as a second potential issue but, like the first, determined it was not an arguable issue for reversal during its independent Wende review.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires independent review of the record by the court of appeal 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 a criminal appeal by filing a brief identifying potential issues and requesting independent court review.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for independent review when counsel identifies no arguable issues. However, it provides no substantive legal analysis or reasoning for why the specific evidentiary issues raised by counsel were not reversible error, relying solely on the conclusion that no arguable issues were found.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:02Z · confidence low

The juvenile court found the Minor violated probation (contact with the victim and a positive THC test) and committed him to the Urban Camp program for up to 130 days. On appeal, counsel filed a Wende brief, the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Finding of probation violation and commitment to Urban Camp for up to 130 days “The court found the Minor had violated the terms of his probation. The court committed him to the Urban Camp program for a period not to exceed 130 days.”	unclear	correct	unsure The court conducted only Wende/Anders independent review and found no arguable issue; the opinion recites a positive THC test and officer observations of contact with the victim, which is facially sufficient under the preponderance standard governing juvenile probation violations, but the opinion does not analyze the evidence or state a standard of review, so I cannot verify the result from the opinion alone.
Denial of defense motion to exclude all statements regarding the THC drug test “Based on this, the defense requested that all statements of the THC test be excluded. This request was denied.”	abuse of discretion	correct	unsure Foundation objections to drug-test evidence in probation-violation proceedings go to weight rather than admissibility where the formal rules of evidence are relaxed, and the court's identification of this as a non-arguable issue is consistent with that framework; however, the opinion provides no reasoning or authority, so agreement rests on inference.
Admission of probation officer's testimony relaying the home supervision team's observations of the Minor contacting the victim “Whether the court erred in permitting the probation officer to testify about the home supervision team seeing the Minor contacting the victim.”	abuse of discretion	correct	unsure Testimonial hearsay from non-testifying officers at a probation-violation hearing implicates the good-cause/reliability requirements of People v. Arreola and People v. Maki, which the opinion does not discuss; any error may well be harmless given the independent THC-test violation, but the opinion's silence leaves the question unresolved.

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 filing a no-merit brief should identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
missed: People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 — A Wende opinion should set out the facts, the procedural history, the crimes, and the issues counsel identified; the court complied in substance but did not cite this controlling authority.
missed: People v. Arreola (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1144 — Testimonial hearsay at a probation revocation hearing is admissible only on a showing of good cause or circumstantial indicia of reliability, bearing directly on the second issue counsel identified.
missed: People v. Maki (1985) 39 Cal.3d 707 — Documentary hearsay bearing indicia of reliability may be admitted at a probation revocation hearing, relevant to the THC test and officer-report evidence.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court followed the Wende/Anders procedure, recited the facts and the two issues counsel flagged, and affirmed after independent review, which is a defensible disposition. It did not cite People v. Kelly or any authority on hearsay at probation-violation hearings, so the reader cannot see why the identified issues were deemed non-arguable.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 12/15/25 In re Christian W. 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 Christian W., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D084689 THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. J245326)

v. CHRISTIAN W., Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a dispositional order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Richard R. Monroy, Judge. Affirmed. Matthew Johnson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance from Plaintiff and Respondent.

In October 2023, a petition was filed in Juvenile Court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 alleging Christian W. (the Minor) committed various crimes. In April 2024, the Minor admitted a violation of corporal injury to a cohabitant (Pen. Code,1 § 273.5, subd. (a)) and grand theft (§ 487, subd. (a)). At a disposition hearing on April 26, 2024, the Minor was adjudged a ward of the court. The Minor was ordered to stay away from the victim and not use drugs. Following reports of the Minor’s alleged violations, the court held an evidentiary hearing. The court found the Minor had violated the terms of his probation. The court committed him to the Urban Camp program for a period not to exceed 130 days. 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 advised the Minor of his right to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. STATEMENT OF FACTS Appellate counsel has provided a brief but useful summary of the facts discussed at the evidentiary hearing. We will incorporate the summary into this opinion. At the violation of probation hearing on July 15, 2024, Probation Officer Adame stated that the home supervision team had noticed the victim right down the street from the Minor’s house as they were leaving the Minor’s house and confronted him about it. Officer Adame described a second interaction they had with the Minor where they stated that the Minor and the victim were communicating. She also stated that home supervision team 1 Statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. 2 had seen the Minor walk past the home supervision officers and communicate with the victim. The Minor denied any communication with the victim. Officer Adame also testified that the Minor had taken a drug test on June 3, 2024, and it had been positive for THC. When defense counsel questioned her about the second violation, Officer Adame stated that she did not know what machine was used or the name of the person who administered the test or that person’s qualifications.2 DISCUSSION As we have noted, counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to independently review the record for error. To assist the court in its review, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel has identified two possible issues which were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: 1. Whether the court abused its discretion when it denied the defense motion to exclude all statements regarding the THC drug test. 2. Whether the court erred in permitting the probation officer to testify about the home supervision team seeing the Minor contacting the victim. 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.

2 Based on this, the defense requested that all statements of the THC test be excluded. This request was denied. 3 DISPOSITION The order is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.* WE CONCUR:

MCCONNELL, P. J.

CASTILLO, J.

* Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. 4

Cites, in this corpus

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