In re David B. CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D063755 · 2013-12-02 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. J225079
Trial judge: Carolyn M. Caietti
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: delinquency
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Judith D. McConnell, McINTYRE

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T06:47Z · confidence high

The trial court accepted the minor's admission to three probation violations and re-imposed probation with a 90 to 120-day commitment to the Y.O.U. program. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after finding no reasonably arguable issues on appeal pursuant to a Wende/Anders review.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Acceptance of probation violation admissions and re-imposition of probation terms (including Y.O.U. commitment) “We have reviewed the entire record in accordance with Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738 and have not found any reasonably arguable appellate issues.”	unclear	not reached	agree with court The court did not apply a specific standard of review (such as abuse of discretion) to the trial court's rulings because it determined under the Wende/Anders procedure that no reasonably arguable issues existed to warrant further analysis. The court affirmed the judgment based solely on the absence of arguable error in the record.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to conduct an independent review of the record to identify any arguable issues when counsel finds none.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to file a brief identifying possible but not arguable issues and request the court to review the record.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for cases where counsel identifies no arguable issues. It accurately states that the court reviewed the entire record and found no error, which is the required disposition in such circumstances.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:31Z · confidence low

The juvenile court found the Minor, already on probation for robbery, in violation of probation after he admitted three violations (school attendance, controlled substances, and missed probation meetings), continued him on probation, and ordered 90 to 120 days in the Y.O.U. program, denying his request for a 30-to-60-day term. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief identifying four possible but not arguable issues; the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no reasonably arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Acceptance of the Minor's admission of three probation violations after advisement of his right to a probation violation hearing “Later the Minor admitted three of the probation violations, following a full advisement of his rights to a probation violation hearing.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The opinion states the admission followed a full advisement of the Minor's hearing rights and counsel could identify no arguable defect; a Wende review that finds no issue on this point is consistent with the recited record, though the opinion gives no detail of the colloquy.
Finding that the Minor's waiver of his probation violation hearing rights was knowing and voluntary “Did the Minor knowingly and voluntarily waive his rights when he admitted”	unclear	correct	unsure The court found no arguable issue, but the opinion recites nothing about the Minor's age, understanding, or the colloquy beyond the statement that a full advisement occurred, so the quoted record is too thin to independently confirm voluntariness.
Dispositional order removing the Minor from his home and placing him in the Y.O.U. program “Did the court abuse its discretion in ordering that the Minor be removed from”	abuse of discretion	correct	agree with court The recited facts show the Minor was dropped from school, twice tested positive for marijuana, failed to enroll in treatment, stopped contact with probation, and hid in an attic from officers; a 90-to-120-day Y.O.U. placement, within the original 480-day cap, is well within juvenile court dispositional discretion.
Denial of the Minor's request that the Y.O.U. commitment not exceed 30 to 60 days “Did the court abuse its discretion in denying the Minor's request that the”	abuse of discretion	correct	agree with court Given repeated and escalating violations, including absconding from probation supervision, selecting a 90-to-120-day term over a 30-to-60-day term is a reasonable exercise of discretion and no legal error appears from the opinion.

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.
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 examine the record.

The appellate opinion: sound — The court followed the Wende/Anders procedure correctly: it identified the possible issues counsel raised, offered the Minor a chance to file his own brief, independently reviewed the record, and found no arguable issue, a result the recited facts support. The opinion contains no substantive legal analysis, which is typical of Wende dispositions, but it leaves the reader unable to verify the advisement and waiver findings beyond the court's summary statement.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 12/2/13 In re David 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 DAVID B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D063755 THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. J225079)

v. DAVID B., Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Carolyn M. Caietti, Judge. Affirmed.

Jill M. Kent, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In this case, David B. (the Minor) was on probation in the juvenile court for robbery (Pen. Code, § 211). His probation terms included placement in the San Diego County Probation Youthful Offender program (Y.O.U.) for a period not to exceed 480 days.

In February 2013, the Minor was detained for alleged probation violations. Later the Minor admitted three of the probation violations, following a full advisement of his rights to a probation violation hearing. The court again placed the Minor on probation subject to 90 to 120 days in the Y.O.U. program.

The Minor filed a timely notice of appeal.

Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) raising possible, but not arguable issues. We offered the Minor the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal.

The Minor has not responded.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The statement of facts in the appellant's brief is accurate and precise. We include it here.

Violation 2 (school attendance): Probation reported the Minor was not present at Metro United Methodist Urban Program on September 26, 2012, and that his teacher reported he was doing just enough work to stay enrolled. Two months later, on November 21, 2012, probation again visited Metro for a scheduled appointment with the Minor, who was not present. On December 5, 2012, the school dropped the Minor for not completing any work.

Violation 3 (controlled substances): Probation reported the Minor tested positive for marijuana on September 12, 2012, and was directed to enroll in an outpatient 2 substance abuse program. The Minor again tested positive for marijuana on October 1, 2012. During a check on the Minor's residence on November 17, 2012, officers reported finding a small tin containing marijuana residual in his bedroom. The Minor stated at that time he had not enrolled in drug treatment as previously directed and was unable to provide a sample for drug testing. Probation ordered him to appear on November 19, 2012, but the Minor did not show up. Probation set another appointment for November 21, 2012 at Metro, but again the Minor failed to appear.

Violation 5 (meetings with probation): Probation reported the Minor failed to appear at scheduled meetings on November 19, 2012, and November 21, 2012, and ceased contact with probation thereafter. On January 18, 2013, a juvenile detention order issued for the Minor. The following month, on February 21, 2013, probation assisted the police department in a warrant sweep, visiting the Minor's home. The Minor's father responded several minutes after the police knocked on the door. The father told the officers that the Minor was around the house somewhere but provided no further information. Officers eventually located a crawl space to an attic and ordered the Minor to come out or they would send in a canine. The Minor came out of the attic and was taken into custody.

DISCUSSION

As previously noted, appellate counsel has filed a brief indicating she is unable to identify any argument for reversal and asks this court to review the entire record for error as mandated by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, the brief identifies the possible, but not arguable issues:

3 1. Was the Minor adequately advised of his rights with regard to the waiver of a probation violation hearing?

2. Did the Minor knowingly and voluntarily waive his rights when he admitted the probation violations?

3. Did the court abuse its discretion in ordering that the Minor be removed from his home?

4. Did the court abuse its discretion in denying the Minor's request that the commitment to the Y.O.U. program not exceed 30 to 60 days?

We have reviewed the entire record in accordance with Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738 and have not found any reasonably arguable appellate issues. Competent counsel has represented the Minor on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

McINTYRE, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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