In re A.D. CA4/3

Opinion

Filed 8/24/26 In re A.D. CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re A.D., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G065465 v. (Super. Ct. No. 24DL1604)

A.D., OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Joseph Kang, Judge. Affirmed. Jo Pastore, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * * Following a contested hearing, a juvenile court (the court) found true allegations that 15-year-old A.D. had committed two misdemeanor crimes: domestic battery and resisting arrest. The court placed A.D. on probation with various terms and conditions. A.D. filed a notice of appeal. A.D.’s counsel filed an opening brief identifying no arguable issues on appeal. (See Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders); People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) A.D. has not filed a supplemental brief on his own behalf. After independently reviewing the record, we affirm the judgment.

I. 1 BRIEF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A police officer responded to a call at a park and saw A.D. and a female fighting. A.D. was standing over the female, and it looked like A.D. was lifting her and throwing her on the ground. The officer directed them both to sit, which they initially did. As the officer spoke to the female, A.D. stood up and said he was innocent. The officer ordered A.D. to sit down. The officer began to handcuff A.D., but he resisted by holding his left wrist with his right hand, which prevented the officer from pulling both of A.D.’s hands behind his back. The officer eventually took A.D. to the ground. The officer noticed injuries to the female, which included bleeding from her mouth and from the side of her face. The female told the police that A.D. had struck her with both hands, and when she fell to the ground she hit 1 In Wende appeals, the California Supreme Court has directed appellate courts to outline “a brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case, the crimes of which the defendant was convicted, and the punishment imposed.” (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109–110.)

2 her face. The female said that she and A.D. were in a dating relationship.

Procedural History The People filed an amended petition charging A.D. with felony domestic battery with corporal injury, and misdemeanor resisting arrest. (Pen. Code, §§ 273.5, subd. (a), 148, subd. (a)(1).) Following a contested hearing, the court found true a lesser included misdemeanor domestic battery offense, and found true the misdemeanor resisting arrest charge. (Pen. Code, §§ 243, subd. (e)(1), 148, subd. (a)(1).) The court declared A.D. a ward of the court and placed him on probation with various terms and conditions, including 20 hours community service, an anger management program, and standard fines. A.D. filed a timely notice of appeal. A.D.’s appointed counsel filed an opening brief raising four issues counsel had considered, but counsel did not raise any arguable “grounds for relief.” This court has not received a supplement brief from A.D.

II. DISCUSSION When a defendant’s appellate counsel identifies no arguable issues on appeal, an appellate court must independently review the record for arguable issues. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441–442.) Generally, “an arguable issue on appeal consists of two elements. First, the issue must be one which, in counsel’s professional opinion, is meritorious. That is not to say that the contention must necessarily achieve success. Rather, it must have a reasonable potential for success. Second, if successful, the issue must be such that, if resolved favorably to the appellant, 3 the result will either be a reversal or a modification of the judgment.” (People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109.) In a “Wende brief,” appellate counsel may identify potential issues that were considered, but not raised on appeal. (See People v. Kent (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 293, 296 [the listing of potential issues (so-called “Anders issues”) is welcomed and encouraged]; but see People v. Garcia (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 314, 325 [the listing of potential issues “is not necessarily helpful to the reviewing court or to an appellant”].) Here, counsel identified four issues that were considered, but not raised on appeal: (1) sufficiency of the evidence; (2) self-defense; (3) true finding of an uncharged lesser included offense; and (4) lawfulness of the arrest regarding the resisting arrest true finding. This court has reviewed the entire record on appeal, and we find no arguable issues, including the four “Anders” issues identified by counsel. (See People v. Johnson, supra, 123 Cal.App.3d at p. 109 [“the issue must be such that, if resolved favorably to the appellant, the result will either be a reversal or a modification of the judgment”].)

4 III. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

MOORE, ACTING P. J.

WE CONCUR:

DELANEY, J.

SERVINO, J.