In re Brandon B. CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D066809 · 2015-03-26 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. J233082
Trial judge: David B. Oberholtzer
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: delinquency
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Cynthia Aaron, Joan K. Irion

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T06:20Z · confidence low

The juvenile court adjudicated the minor a ward of the court for first-degree burglary based on fingerprint evidence and committed him to Camp Barrett for up to 365 days. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, finding no reasonably arguable issues for reversal.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Adjudication of the minor as a ward of the court and commitment to Camp Barrett “We have reviewed the entire record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and have not identified any reasonably arguable issue for reversal on appeal.”	de novo	not reached	unsure The court did not explicitly state a standard of review for the underlying adjudication, but in a Wende appeal, the court reviews the entire record to determine if there are any reasonably arguable issues. The court found none, effectively affirming the trial court's decision without a detailed analysis of the evidence or legal standards applied at trial.
Denial of motion to exclude latent fingerprint testimony “1. Whether the juvenile court erred in denying the Minor's motion to exclude testimony regarding the analysis of the latent fingerprints?”	abuse of discretion	not reached	unsure The appellate court identified this as a possible issue raised by counsel but concluded it was not 'reasonably arguable' for reversal. The opinion does not provide specific reasoning for why the evidence was admissible or why the trial court did not abuse its discretion, relying instead on the Wende standard that no arguable issues exist.
Failure to recuse judge due to prior relationship with victim “2. Whether the judge erred by failing to recuse himself when he discovered the victim was employed by the Superior Court and recognized the victim as a research attorney who had done some research work for the judge years earlier?”	abuse of discretion	not reached	unsure The court noted the judge's prior acquaintance with the victim but found no reasonably arguable issue for reversal. The opinion does not explicitly apply the standard for judicial bias (e.g., whether a reasonable person would doubt the judge's impartiality), but implies the relationship was too remote or insubstantial to warrant recusal.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to review the record for error and file a brief identifying any reasonably arguable issues, or stating that none exist.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel who believes an appeal is wholly frivolous, requiring a brief identifying possible issues and allowing the court to review the record independently.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound in following the Wende/Anders protocol by reviewing the record and finding no arguable issues. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' opinion because it provides no substantive legal analysis for why the specific issues raised (fingerprint admissibility and judicial recusal) were not reasonably arguable, leaving the reader to infer the court's rationale.

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 true an allegation that the Minor committed first degree burglary based on fingerprint evidence, declared him a ward, and committed him to Camp Barrett for up to 365 days. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief identifying two possible issues (denial of a motion to exclude fingerprint-analysis testimony and the judge's failure to recuse himself after recognizing the victim as a former court research attorney); the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issue, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
True finding that the Minor committed first degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460; Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) based on fingerprint evidence, and resulting wardship and Camp Barrett commitment “have not identified any reasonably arguable issue for reversal on appeal.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The opinion recites that a fingerprint examiner identified two latent prints inside the burglarized home as the Minor's, which is substantial evidence supporting a burglary finding. The court conducted the independent record review required by Wende and found nothing arguable; nothing in the opinion suggests otherwise, though the recitation is too thin to verify independently.
Denial of the Minor's motion to exclude testimony regarding the analysis of latent fingerprints “testimony regarding the analysis of the latent fingerprints?”	unclear	correct	agree with court Admission of fingerprint-comparison testimony by a qualified examiner is routinely upheld under an abuse-of-discretion standard, and the opinion gives no indication of any defect in qualification or methodology. The opinion does not describe the grounds of the motion, so the conclusion cannot be fully checked, but the result is consistent with settled law.
Trial judge's failure to recuse himself after learning the victim was a Superior Court research attorney who had done research for the judge years earlier “The judge informed the parties he was certain he would be impartial.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The judge disclosed the connection on the record, stated he could be impartial, and neither party objected or sought disqualification; a disqualification claim not raised below is forfeited and the statutory remedy for a denied disqualification is by writ, not appeal (Code Civ. Proc., § 170.3, subd. (d)). The opinion's treatment of this as a non-arguable issue is defensible, though it does not cite these authorities.

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.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal frivolous must file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the standard Wende/Anders procedure, lists the possible issues counsel identified, and states that independent review disclosed no arguable error, which is a defensible result given the fingerprint evidence and the unobjected-to judicial disclosure. It does not, however, explain why the two flagged issues are not arguable or cite authority on forfeiture of disqualification claims or the applicability of Wende to delinquency appeals, so it affirms without analysis.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 3/26/15 In re Brandon 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 BRANDON B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D066809 THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. J233082)

v. BRANDON B., Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, David B.

Oberholtzer, Judge. Affirmed.

Jason L. Jones, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

This appeal arises from a juvenile court proceeding in which it was alleged that Brandon B. (the Minor) committed first degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460; Welf.

& Inst. Code, § 602). Following an adjudication hearing, the juvenile court found the allegations in the petition to be true. The Minor was declared a ward of the court and committed to the Camp Barrett program for a period not to exceed 365 days. The Minor filed a timely notice of appeal.

Prior to the commencement of the adjudication hearing, the prosecutor informed the court that the victim was a research attorney for the Superior Court. The judge recognized the victim and said the victim had done some research for the court some years before. The judge informed the parties he was certain he would be impartial.

Neither party made any comment and nobody suggested the judge should recuse himself.

Appellate 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), indicating he has been unable to identify any reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal.

Counsel asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende.

We offered the Minor an opportunity to file his own brief on appeal but he has not responded.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

On April 11, 2013 the residents of a home in the Tierrasanta area of San Diego discovered their home had been burglarized. The home was ransacked and a number of personal items had been stolen.

Latent fingerprints were taken from the crime scene. A fingerprint examiner testified that two of the fingerprints found inside the house were those of the Minor.

The true finding that the Minor committed the burglary was based on the fingerprint evidence.

2 DISCUSSION

As we have noted above, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, indicating he has not been able to identify any reasonably arguable issue for reversal on appeal. In compliance with Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, counsel has identified possible, but not arguable issues to assist the court in our review of the record:

1. Whether the juvenile court erred in denying the Minor's motion to exclude testimony regarding the analysis of the latent fingerprints?

2. Whether the judge erred by failing to recuse himself when he discovered the victim was employed by the Superior Court and recognized the victim as a research attorney who had done some research work for the judge years earlier?

We have reviewed the entire record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and have not identified any reasonably arguable issue for reversal on appeal. The Minor has been represented by competent counsel on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

AARON, J.

IRION, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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