In re Michael J. CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D066278 · 2015-04-01 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from orders
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. J231394
Trial judges: Aaron H. Katz; Robert Longstreth
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: delinquency
Panel: Alex C. McDonald (author), Richard D. Huffman, Sr., Joan K. Irion

Analysis

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

The trial court denied Michael J.'s motion to suppress evidence, accepted his plea to a theft count, and imposed a disposition including a maximum term of five years and two months. The Court of Appeal affirmed the orders, finding no reasonably arguable issues on appeal after a Wende/Anders review.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of motion to suppress evidence “whether the trial court erred in finding Michael was not unlawfully detained and therefore erred when it denied his motion to suppress the evidence against him”	unclear	not reached	unsure The appellate court conducted a Wende/Anders review and concluded that no reasonably arguable issues existed in the record, thereby affirming the trial court's denial of the motion to suppress without detailed analysis.
Jurisdictional findings and disposition “A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738 has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues.”	abuse of discretion	not reached	unsure The court affirmed the jurisdictional findings and the resulting disposition (including the maximum term calculation) based on the conclusion that the record contained no reasonably arguable errors.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to review the record for error when no issues are presented.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to file a brief identifying any arguable issues and to request leave to withdraw if none are found.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is a standard Wende/Anders review where counsel identified potential issues but the court found none reasonably arguable. The reasoning is procedurally correct for this type of appeal but provides no substantive legal analysis of the specific claims raised.

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 denied Michael J.'s motion to suppress evidence as the fruit of an unlawful detention, then accepted his negotiated admission to grand theft (Pen. Code § 487, subd. (c)), dismissed the attempted robbery count, continued him as a ward, committed him to juvenile hall under the Breaking Cycles program for up to 240 days, and later set an aggregate maximum confinement term of five years two months by ex parte minute order. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief identifying four possible issues; the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no reasonably arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of motion to suppress evidence as the fruit of an unlawful detention “Michael moved to suppress the evidence against him, alleging it was the fruit of an unlawful detention. After that motion was denied, the parties agreed to a disposition.”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion recites no facts about the detention and conducts only a Wende independent review, so there is nothing in the opinion from which to evaluate whether the detention was supported by reasonable suspicion. The suppression ruling is reviewable despite the admission (Welf. & Inst. Code § 800), and the court's statement that review disclosed no arguable issue is the standard Wende disposition, but it cannot be independently verified from this opinion.
Acceptance of admission to Pen. Code § 487, subd. (c) and sustaining of the amended petition “after determining Michael's waiver of his rights was knowing and voluntary and his admission to the factual basis for the plea was free and voluntary, sustained the petition, continued Michael as a ward of the court, and dismissed count one.”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion states the court found a knowing and voluntary waiver and a free and voluntary admission with a factual basis, which is what is required before accepting a juvenile admission. The opinion does not discuss whether Proposition 47 (effective November 2014, before this April 2015 opinion) had any bearing on a § 487(c) grand theft admission, but the opinion gives no value information and the issue is speculative on this record.
Calculation of custody credits “(2) whether Michael's custody credits were properly calculated;”	unclear	correct	unsure Counsel flagged credits as a possible issue; the court's Wende review found no arguable error. The opinion contains no credit figures or dates, so the correctness of the calculation cannot be assessed from the opinion.
Setting of maximum term of confinement at five years two months by ex parte minute order “in an ex parte minute order, the court determined the overall maximum term of confinement was five years two months, and ordered all prior orders not in conflict remain in full force and effect.”	unclear	correct	unsure Because Michael was committed to juvenile hall, Welfare and Institutions Code section 726, subdivision (d) required the court to specify a maximum term, and aggregation with prior sustained petitions is permitted. The opinion does not explain the arithmetic or the prior petitions aggregated, nor address the ex parte setting of the term, so the ruling cannot be confirmed from the opinion alone.
Imposition of probation conditions challenged as vague or overbroad “(4) whether the probation conditions imposed on Michael were unconstitutionally vague or overbroad.”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion does not identify the conditions imposed, so there is no way to evaluate whether any lacked a knowledge requirement or were overbroad. The court's conclusion that no arguable issue exists is unverified but consistent with the Wende procedure.

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 file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, and the court must then decide whether the appeal is frivolous.
missed: In re Kevin S. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 97 — The Wende independent-review procedure applies to a minor's first appeal of right in a juvenile delinquency proceeding; the court applied Wende here without citing this authority for its applicability in delinquency appeals.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court followed the Wende/Anders procedure properly: it summarized the proceedings, noted counsel's identified issues, gave the minor an opportunity to file a supplemental brief, independently reviewed the record, and affirmed. The opinion offers no analysis of any of the four flagged issues and does not mention Proposition 47's potential effect on a § 487(c) admission entered in 2014, so while the result is defensible under Wende, the opinion leaves the substance unexplained.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 4/1/15 In re Michael J. 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 MICHAEL J., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D066278 THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. J231394)

v. MICHAEL J., Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Robert Longstreth and Aaron H. Katz, Judges. Affirmed.

Johanna S. Schiavoni, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

An amended petition alleged minor Michael J. came within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 because it alleged Michael attempted to steal personal property, by mean of force and fear, from Deyanira G. (in violation of Pen.

Code, §§ 211/664),1 and assaulted her with force likely to cause great bodily injury (in violation of § 245, subd. (a)(4)), and assaulted another person with force likely to cause great bodily injury (in violation of § 245, subd. (a)(4)). Michael moved to suppress the evidence against him, alleging it was the fruit of an unlawful detention. After that motion was denied, the parties agreed to a disposition. Under the agreement, the prosecution filed an amended petition alleging only two counts—that Michael attempted to steal personal property, by mean of force and fear, from Deyanira G. (in violation of §§ 211/664), and Michael stole the property (in violation of § 487, subd. (c))—and Michael agreed to admit the count alleging violation of section 487, subdivision (c), in exchange for dismissal of the count alleging violation of section 211/664. The court, after determining Michael's waiver of his rights was knowing and voluntary and his admission to the factual basis for the plea was free and voluntary, sustained the petition, continued Michael as a ward of the court, and dismissed count one. The court also adopted the fast track recommendations and ordered Michael be detained in juvenile hall as part of the Breaking Cycles program for a maximum of 240 days. Thereafter, in an ex parte minute order, the court determined the overall maximum term of confinement was five years two months, and ordered all prior orders not in conflict remain in full force and effect.

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.

2 Michael filed a notice of appeal from the denial of his motion to suppress evidence and the jurisdictional findings. We affirm.

FACTS

On May 22, 2014, Michael unlawfully stole and took personal property from Deyanira G.

DISCUSSION

Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the 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 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738. Counsel has identified as possible issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in finding Michael was not unlawfully detained and therefore erred when it denied his motion to suppress the evidence against him; (2) whether Michael's custody credits were properly calculated; (3) whether the trial court properly calculated the maximum term of confinement; and (4) whether the probation conditions imposed on Michael were unconstitutionally vague or overbroad.

We granted Michael permission to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf, but 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 has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Michael has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.

3 DISPOSITION

The orders are affirmed.

McDONALD, J.

WE CONCUR:

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

IRION, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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