In re M.F. CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. J246362
- Trial judge
- Richard R. Monroy
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- delinquency
- Panel
- Laurence D. Rubin (author), Bermudez
Analysis
The juvenile court found the minor competent to stand trial, adjudicated the minor a ward of the court for assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury, and placed the minor on probation. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent Wende review found no arguable issues for reversal.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Finding of competency to stand trial“Without opposition, the court found the minor was competent to stand trial.” | unclear | not reached | agree with court The appellate court noted this as a potential issue identified by counsel but stated it had not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal after independent review, effectively affirming the trial court's finding without detailed analysis. |
Adjudication of assault charge and section 12022.7(a) allegation“The court accepted the mother’s version of events and made true finding on the assault charge and the related allegation under section 12022.7, subdivision (a).” | unclear | not reached | agree with court The appellate court conducted an independent review of the record as required by Wende and Anders but did not identify any arguable issues for reversal regarding the sufficiency of the evidence or the trial court's credibility determinations. |
Disposition (probation and best interest determination)“whether the court erred in finding the Minor’s continued presence in the home was not in the Minor’s best interest.” | unclear | not reached | agree with court Counsel identified the best interest determination as a potential issue, but the appellate court found no arguable issues for reversal after independent review, affirming the disposition. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed 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 — Requires independent review of the record by the appellate court when appointed counsel files a no-merit brief.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the Wende/Anders framework for reviewing a no-merit brief in a juvenile delinquency case. It accurately reflects that the court performed the required independent review and found no arguable errors in the competency finding, adjudication, or disposition.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual disposition unusual dispositionThe juvenile court found M.F. competent to stand trial, sustained a petition alleging assault by force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)) with a great bodily injury enhancement (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)), set a six-year maximum confinement, declared him a ward, and placed him on probation. Appointed counsel filed a Wende brief, the minor filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Finding that the minor was competent to stand trial following an expert evaluation and hearing“Without opposition, the court found the minor was competent to stand trial.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The court ordered an evaluation, reviewed the expert report, held a hearing, and made an unopposed finding; nothing in the opinion suggests the finding lacked evidentiary support, and the absence of objection further undercuts any appellate challenge. The Wende review found no arguable issue, which is consistent with the record described. |
True findings on the § 245, subd. (a)(4) assault charge and the § 12022.7, subd. (a) great bodily injury allegation after a contested adjudication“The court accepted the mother’s version of events and made true finding on the assault charge and the related allegation under section 12022.7, subdivision (a).” | unclear | correct | agree with court The true findings turned on a credibility contest between the minor and his mother; the juvenile court resolved it in the mother's favor, and a reviewing court does not reweigh credibility under the substantial evidence standard. Nothing in the opinion suggests the mother's account, if believed, failed to establish the elements. |
Setting the maximum term of confinement at six years for the assault and the great bodily injury enhancement“The court found the maximum confinement for the assault and the allegation of great bodily injury to be six years.” | unclear | correct | agree with court Under Welfare and Institutions Code section 726, subdivision (d), the maximum term may not exceed the adult upper term plus enhancements; the upper term for § 245, subd. (a)(4) is four years and the § 12022.7, subd. (a) enhancement adds three, so a six-year figure is within (indeed below) the lawful maximum and could not prejudice the minor. No arguable issue arises for the appellant. |
Dispositional finding that the minor's continued presence in the home was not in his best interest, with wardship and probation“whether the court erred in finding the Minor’s continued presence in the home was not in the Minor’s best interest.” | unclear | correct | agree with court Dispositional and placement decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion, and the sustained offense was a violent assault on the minor's mother inside the home, which readily supports a finding that remaining in that home was not in his best interest. The opinion gives little detail on the disposition, but the Wende review found no arguable error and the described facts support that conclusion. |
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 arguable error before affirming.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous must so advise the court and refer to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, after which the court conducts its own examination.
- missed: In re Kevin S. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 97 — Wende independent-review procedures apply to appeals from juvenile delinquency judgments; the opinion applied Wende in a delinquency appeal without citing the authority extending it to that context.
The appellate opinion: sound — The court followed the Wende/Anders procedure correctly: it noted counsel's brief and the two issues flagged, advised the minor of his right to file a supplemental brief, briefly described the offense, findings, and disposition, independently reviewed the record, and affirmed. The opinion is sparse on the facts underlying the competency and dispositional findings and does not cite the authority applying Wende to delinquency appeals, but the result is defensible and nothing in the opinion suggests a misreading of the law.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
record incompleteOpinion
Filed 7/31/26 In re M.F. 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 M.F., a Person Coming Under the D086886 Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. J246362)
v. M.F., Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Richard R. Monroy, Judge. Affirmed. Travis Daily, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent. A petition was filed in juvenile court alleging M.F. (Minor) committed an assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury (Pen. Code,1 § 245, 1 Further statutory references are to the Penal Code. subd. (a)(4)). The court ordered a competency examination of the minor. The court reviewed the expert’s report and held a hearing. Without opposition, the court found the minor was competent to stand trial. The court held an adjudication hearing after which the court found the assault charge to be true and found the allegation under section 12022.7, subd. (a) also true. The court found the maximum confinement for the assault and the allegation of great bodily injury to be six years. A dispositional hearing was conducted after which the Minor was ordered a ward of the court and placed on probation subject to various terms and conditions. The minor filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d. 436 (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 advised the Minor that he could file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded to our notice. The true finding in this case arises from a violent confrontation between the Minor and his mother inside the home. The mother and Minor offered different versions of the events. The court accepted the mother’s version of events and made true finding on the assault charge and the related allegation under section 12022.7, subdivision (a). 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 in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) counsel has identified two possible issues that were considered in 2 evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: whether the court erred in finding the Minor to be competent to stand trial, and whether the court erred in finding the Minor’s continued presence in the home was not in the Minor’s best interest. 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 in this appeal. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.* WE CONCUR:
RUBIN, Acting P. J.
BERMÚDEZ, 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.