In re Miguel D. CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D086101 · 2026-05-14 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from findings and an order
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. J245248
Trial judge: Robert J. Trentacosta
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: delinquency
Panel: Julia C. Kelety (author), Michele M. Castillo

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T03:24Z · confidence low

The juvenile court found the minor committed assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury for the benefit of a criminal street gang and committed him to Urban Camp for up to 130 days. The Court of Appeal affirmed the findings and dispositional order after an independent Wende review found no arguable issues for reversal.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
True finding on the allegation that the offense was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (b)(1)) “Whether there was sufficient evidence presented to support the true finding on the allegation that Minor committed the offense for the benefit of a criminal street gang.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The appellate court identified the sufficiency of the evidence for the gang enhancement as a potential issue but stated it had 'not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal' after independent review. The opinion does not explicitly state the standard of review (e.g., substantial evidence) or provide a detailed analysis of the evidence supporting the finding, only that no error was found.
Dispositional order committing the minor to Urban Camp for a period not to exceed 130 days “The true findings and the dispositional order on the petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 are affirmed.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The court affirmed the dispositional order as part of the overall disposition. The opinion does not discuss the specific legal standard for reviewing juvenile dispositions (typically abuse of discretion) or analyze the appropriateness of the 130-day commitment, relying instead on the general Wende review finding of no error.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 439 — Requires appellate counsel to file a brief identifying arguable issues or, if none exist, to request the court to independently review the record for error.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel who believes an appeal is frivolous, requiring a brief identifying potential issues and a request for independent review.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound in following the Wende/Anders protocol by conducting an independent review of the record. However, it is substantively thin, as it fails to articulate the standard of review or provide any specific reasoning for why the gang enhancement or disposition was correct, merely stating 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, 2026-10-13T04:15Z · confidence low

The juvenile court found true an allegation that Miguel D. committed assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)) with a gang-benefit finding (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)), declared him a ward under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, and committed him to Urban Camp for up to 130 days. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief identifying only the sufficiency of the gang finding as a possible issue; the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
True finding that Minor committed assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)) and adjudication as a ward under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 “Following an evidentiary hearing, the court found the allegation of assault true.”	unclear	correct	unsure The court conducted an independent Wende review and found no arguable issue; the opinion states no standard of review and recites only two sentences of facts (Minor acted in concert with gang members in confronting a rival-gang-affiliated youth at the Iris Avenue trolley station). Nothing in the opinion suggests error, but the recited record is too thin for an outside reader to verify the finding independently.
True finding that the assault was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (b)(1)) — the Anders issue identified by counsel as possible insufficiency of the evidence “Whether there was sufficient evidence presented to support the true finding on the allegation that Minor committed the offense for the benefit of a criminal street gang.”	substantial evidence	correct	unsure Counsel flagged sufficiency of the gang finding, which would be reviewed for substantial evidence, and the court found no arguable issue after independent review. The opinion does not discuss the elements of section 186.22 as amended by Assembly Bill 333 (e.g., the collective-engagement, common-benefit-more-than-reputational, and pattern-of-activity requirements) or describe the gang-expert or predicate-offense evidence, so the reader cannot assess whether the finding meets the current statutory standard. The result is plausible given the recited facts (concerted action by gang members against a rival), but cannot be confirmed from the opinion.
Dispositional order committing Minor to Urban Camp for a period not to exceed 130 days “Minor was adjudged a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 and was committed to Urban Camp for a period not to exceed 130 days.”	unclear	correct	unsure A juvenile disposition is reviewed for abuse of discretion, but the opinion does not state the standard or discuss the disposition beyond affirming it as part of the Wende review. A 130-day camp commitment for a gang-related felony assault is facially within the court's authority; nothing in the opinion suggests error.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 439 — 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 without merit must file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, and the court must then conduct its own examination of the record.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the standard Wende/Anders procedure: it recites the procedural history, offense, disposition, and counsel's flagged issue, notes Minor was invited to file a supplemental brief, and states that independent review disclosed no arguable issues, which is all that is required for such a disposition. It does not, however, articulate the standard of review or address the amended elements of Penal Code section 186.22 in evaluating counsel's identified gang-sufficiency issue, so the reader must take the court's conclusion on faith.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 5/14/26 In re Miguel D. 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 Miguel D. a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D086101 THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. J245248)

v. MIGUEL D., Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from findings and an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Robert J. Trentacosta, Judge. Affirmed. Jake E. Stanton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In a petition filed in the juvenile court, Miguel D. (Minor) was alleged to have committed assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury (Pen. Code,1 § 245, subd. (a)(4)). Following an evidentiary hearing, the court found the allegation of assault true. The court also found the offense was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)). After a disposition hearing, Minor was adjudged a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 and was committed to Urban Camp for a period not to exceed 130 days. Minor filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 439 (Wende) 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 Minor the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. FACTS The evidence shows Minor participated in assaultive behavior in concert with several members of a street gang. Minor and his companions confronted another young man who identified with a different street gang. The altercation took place on and around the Blue Line trolley at the Iris Avenue station in the South Bay area of San Diego County. 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 its review and incompliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) counsel has identified a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Whether there was sufficient 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 evidence presented to support the true finding on the allegation that Minor committed the offense for the benefit of a criminal street gang. 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 Minor in this appeal. DISPOSITION The true findings and the dispositional order on the petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 are affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.* WE CONCUR:

KELETY, Acting 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. 3