In re Robert D. CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D063909 · 2013-12-16 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. JCM232986
Trial judge: Browder A. Willis
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: delinquency
Panel: Judith L. Haller (author), Judith D. McConnell, McINTYRE

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T06:46Z · confidence low

The juvenile court adjudged the minor a ward of the court and placed him on probation after he admitted first-degree burglary and a true finding on a personal presence allegation, which rendered him ineligible for deferred entry of judgment. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after a Wende review found no reasonably arguable issues.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of deferred entry of judgment based on the true finding of personal presence during first-degree burglary “The true finding on the first degree burglary charge rendered appellant ineligible for deferred entry of judgment. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 790, 707, subd. (b)(16); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.800.)”	unclear	not reached	unsure The appellate court did not explicitly rule on the merits of the ineligibility argument because it was listed as a 'possible, but not arguable' issue by counsel and the court found no reasonably arguable issues upon review of the record.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Establishes the duty of appointed appellate counsel to review the record for error when no arguable issues are presented.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to file a brief identifying any arguable issues, even if counsel believes the appeal is frivolous.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the Wende/Anders framework for reviewing an appeal where counsel identifies no arguable issues. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' opinion because it dismisses four specific legal questions raised by counsel without providing any legal analysis or citing authority to support the conclusion that they are not arguable, relying solely on the court's own review of the record.

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 accepted Robert D.'s admission to first degree burglary with a person present, dismissed the remaining allegations, declared him a ward under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, and placed him on probation in his grandmother's custody. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief identifying four possible issues concerning deferred entry of judgment, 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
Acceptance of the minor's admission, true finding on first degree burglary with person-present allegation, wardship adjudication and probation disposition (reviewed under Wende for any arguable error) “A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issues referred to by appellate counsel, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The opinion follows the standard Wende procedure: counsel filed a no-issue brief, the minor was given the chance to file his own brief and did not, and the court independently reviewed the record. Nothing in the recited facts (entry with a knife, rummaging, hiding in a closet) suggests any defect in the admission or disposition, and the court's conclusion that competent counsel represented the minor is consistent with the procedure described.
Treatment of the minor as ineligible for deferred entry of judgment and the absence of a prosecutorial eligibility declaration or DEJ suitability hearing (the four Anders issues) “The true finding on the first degree burglary charge rendered appellant ineligible for deferred entry of judgment. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 790, 707, subd. (b)(16); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.800.)”	unclear	correct	unsure The court disposes of all four DEJ-related issues on the premise that the burglary true finding made the minor statutorily ineligible, citing section 707, subdivision (b)(16). The opinion does not explain how a first degree burglary with the dangerous-weapon allegation dismissed falls within the cited subdivision of section 707(b), and the one-sentence statement gives no analysis; without the record I cannot confirm the eligibility conclusion, so I cannot say the court misapplied the law, but the reasoning is thin.

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 wholly frivolous may so advise the court and request to withdraw, accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion correctly applies the Wende/Anders procedure and reaches a result that is defensible on the record described. It disposes of the four deferred-entry-of-judgment issues with a single unexplained citation to section 707, subdivision (b)(16), without showing how the admitted offense, with the weapon allegation dismissed, fits that subdivision, leaving a gap in the eligibility analysis.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 12/16/13 In re Robert 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 ROBERT D., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, D063909

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. JCM232986)

ROBERT D.

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Browder A. Willis, Judge. Affirmed.

Sarah Kleven McGann, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance by Respondent.

Robert D., age 14, admitted, and the juvenile court found true, allegations of first degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459/460), and that a person, not an accomplice, was present during the burglary (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (c)(21)). The court dismissed the remaining allegations, i.e., use of a dangerous weapon during the burglary, and a misdemeanor violation of Penal Code section 602.5. The court adjudged Robert a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, placed him on probation with numerous terms and conditions, and detained him with his grandmother.

The true finding on the first degree burglary charge rendered appellant ineligible for deferred entry of judgment. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 790, 707, subd. (b)(16); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.800.)

FACTS1

On February 28, 2013, appellant, who was carrying a kitchen knife, entered a residence and rummaged through drawers in the bedroom and took a pair of women's panties. While there, he used the victim's computer to access a pornographic Web site.

The owner returned and found appellant attempting to hide in an upstairs closet;

appellant's knife was found on the desk in that room.

DISCUSSION

Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. Counsel presents no argument for reversal but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.

Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel refers to four possible, but not arguable, issues: (1) whether the prosecutor denied appellant due process by failing to file a written declaration whether he was eligible for deferred entry of judgment; (2)

1 The facts are taken from the probation officer's social study report prepared for the disposition hearing. 2 whether the court prejudicially erred in not holding a hearing to determine appellant's suitability for deferred entry of judgment; (3) whether a minor may admit less than all allegations of a juvenile petition and still be eligible for deferred entry of judgment; and (4) whether appellant's trial counsel provided ineffective assistance when she waived consideration of deferred entry of judgment. We granted appellant permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded.

A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issues referred to by appellate counsel, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Competent counsel has represented appellant on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

HALLER, J.

WE CONCUR:

MCCONNELL, P. J.

MCINTYRE, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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