In re Charles B. CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. J245770
- Trial judge
- Robert J. Trentacosta
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- delinquency
- Panel
- William S. Dato (author), Buchanan
Analysis
The trial court ordered the minor to pay $6,690 in restitution, including $6,000 for the victim's attorney fees to obtain a restraining order and $690 for phone repairs. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record pursuant to a Wende brief, finding no arguable issues for reversal.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Order for restitution of $6,690 (including $6,000 for attorney fees and $690 for phone repairs)“Whether the court abused its discretion in calculating the amount of restitution due to the victim.” | abuse of discretion | not reached | unsure The appellate court identified the restitution calculation as a potential issue to assist in its independent review but ultimately concluded that it had not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Because the court affirmed the judgment without providing specific reasoning on the merits of the restitution calculation, the specific application of the abuse of discretion standard to the facts is not detailed in the opinion. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Mandates 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 — Requires appointed counsel to file a brief identifying any arguable issues and the court to independently review the record to ensure the defendant's rights are protected.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for reviewing appeals where counsel identifies no issues. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' opinion because it fails to provide any substantive legal analysis or reasoning regarding the specific restitution issue identified by counsel, leaving the reader without insight into why the $6,000 attorney fee award was not considered an error.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe juvenile court accepted the Minor's admission to assault (later substituted by an admission to battery with injury under Penal Code section 243, subdivision (d)), declared him a ward on home probation, and after a contested restitution hearing ordered $268.19 in stipulated medical costs, $6,000 for the victim's family's attorney fees to obtain a restraining order, and $690 for phone repair. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief identifying restitution as a possible issue, the Minor filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issue, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Victim restitution order of $6,000 for attorney fees to obtain a restraining order and $690 for phone repair (plus stipulated $268.19)“Whether the court abused its discretion in calculating the amount of restitution due to the victim.” | abuse of discretion | correct | unsure Juvenile restitution under Welfare and Institutions Code section 730.6 is reviewed for abuse of discretion and the juvenile court may use any rational method to fix an amount that compensates the victim for economic loss caused by the minor's conduct. Attorney fees incurred by the victim's family as a direct consequence of the offense (to secure protection from the Minor) are plausibly compensable economic loss, and the phone repair is a straightforward property loss, but the opinion recites no facts about the evidentiary basis for the $6,000 figure, so I cannot independently confirm the calculation was supported. |
Acceptance of the Minor's admission, wardship declaration, and home probation disposition (entire judgment reviewed under Wende)“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 | correct | agree with court Independent Wende/Anders review is the correct procedure where appointed counsel finds no arguable issue in a first appeal of right from a juvenile delinquency judgment, and the Minor was given the opportunity to file his own brief. Nothing recited in the opinion (negotiated admission, substitution of the lesser battery count on successful probation, home placement) suggests any error, so affirmance follows. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel finds no arguable issues, the Court of Appeal 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 must so advise the court and identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, after which the court conducts its own examination.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court followed the required Wende/Anders procedure, noted counsel's identified restitution issue, offered the Minor a chance to file his own brief, and independently reviewed the record before affirming. The opinion is defensible but, as is typical of Wende dispositions, it gives no explanation of why the $6,000 attorney-fee restitution for a restraining order falls within compensable economic loss under Welfare and Institutions Code section 730.6, leaving that question unaddressed on the face of the opinion.
Opinion
Filed 4/2/26 In re Charles B. 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 Charles B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D085672 THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. J245770)
v. CHARLES B., Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment 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. A petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 was filed in the juvenile court alleging Charles B. (the Minor) committed an assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury (Pen. Code,1 § 245, subd. (a)(4)). He was also charged with causing a battery on school property (§ 243.2, subd. (a)(1)). The Minor admitted the assault and the remaining charge was dismissed. At the dispositional hearing, the court found the alleged assault to be true and declared it a felony with a maximum confinement period of three years. The parties agreed that upon successful completion of probation, the Minor would be permitted to withdraw his admission to assault and admit the battery with causing bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d)). Several months later, the Minor was allowed to admit to section 243. He was declared a ward of the court. He was placed at home on probation. In February 2025, the court held a restitution hearing. The Minor stipulated to $268.19 for a medical insurance payment but objected to the remaining items. The court ultimately ordered $6,000 for the victim’s family to hire a private lawyer to obtain a restraining order against the Minor plus $690 for repair to the victim’s phone. The Minor filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief based on 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 have offered the Minor the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to independently review the record for error. To assist the court in 1 Statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. 2 its review, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel has identified a possible issue which was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Whether the court abused its discretion in calculating the amount of restitution due to 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. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.* WE CONCUR:
DATO, Acting P. J.
BUCHANAN, 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. 3
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12