In re Jose L. CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D068544 · 2016-01-25 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from an order
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. J226667
Trial judge: Edlene C. McKenzie
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: delinquency
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Alex C. McDonald, Gilbert Nares

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T05:59Z · confidence high

The trial court granted the minor's motion to seal juvenile records under Welfare and Institutions Code section 786, despite the notice of appeal incorrectly characterizing the order as a denial. The Court of Appeal affirmed the order, finding no reasonably arguable issues for reversal after an independent review of the record pursuant to Wende and Anders.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Order granting motion to seal juvenile records under Welfare and Institutions Code section 786 “On June 16, 2015 the juvenile court terminated the minor's probation and granted his request to seal his records under section 786.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The appellate court identified that the notice of appeal was based on a clerical error in the trial court's minute order, which stated 'denial' when the court had actually granted the motion. The court affirmed the order because the underlying action was favorable to the appellant and no error was found 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 reasonably arguable issues for reversal when counsel believes the appeal is frivolous.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to file a brief identifying potential issues and request permission to withdraw, subject to court review.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly identifies the discrepancy between the notice of appeal and the actual order, and follows the required Wende/Anders procedure for reviewing a record where counsel finds no arguable issues. The court's independent review of the record satisfies the constitutional requirements for effective assistance of appellate counsel in this context.

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 terminated Jose L.'s probation on June 16, 2015 and granted his motion to seal his juvenile records under Welfare and Institutions Code section 786, although trial counsel's notice of appeal mislabeled the order as a denial of the motion to seal. Appellate counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief identifying no arguable issues, the minor filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issue, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Order of June 16, 2015 terminating probation and granting the minor's motion to seal juvenile records under Welfare and Institutions Code section 786 “On June 16, 2015 the juvenile court terminated the minor's probation and granted his request to seal his records under section 786.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The court conducted an independent Wende review of the record rather than applying a conventional standard of review, and the order under review actually granted the minor the relief he sought. Nothing in the opinion suggests any error, and the two Anders issues counsel flagged (whether sealing was complete and whether unrequested records should also have been sealed) are not shown to have any support in the record. Affirmance is the expected result; the only unaddressed wrinkle is that the minor arguably was not aggrieved by an order in his favor, which might have supported dismissal rather than affirmance, but that does not make the affirmance wrong.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel finds no arguable issues, the reviewing court must independently review the entire record for arguable error.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal lacks merit must file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion correctly follows the Wende/Anders procedure, notes the notice of appeal mischaracterized a favorable order as a denial, and affirms after an independent record review. It does not address whether the minor was an aggrieved party entitled to appeal from an order granting his own motion, which could have warranted dismissal, but the omission does not affect the practical result.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

Opinion

Filed 1/25/16 In reJose L. 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 JOSE L., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D068544 THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. J226667)

v. JOSE L., Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Edlene C.

McKenzie, Judge. Affirmed.

James R. Bostwick, Jr. for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

This is an appeal, purportedly from the denial of a motion to seal juvenile records under Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 786. We note at the outset, however, the motion to seal was granted. The appellate brief presented in this case was filed pursuant 1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), thus there is no contention on appeal that the juvenile court actually denied the minor's request in this case.

The minor, Jose L., was a ward of the juvenile court from October 2010 to October 2014 and placed on probation for several misdemeanor offenses. On June 16, 2015 the juvenile court terminated the minor's probation and granted his request to seal his records under section 786.

Minor's trial counsel filed a notice of appeal from the following order: "06/16/15 denial of motion to seal pursuant to WIC 786."

Since there are no factual issues presented by this appeal we will omit a statement of facts and proceed to the discussion.

DISCUSSION

As we have previously indicated, appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, 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 the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal but he has not responded. In order to comply with Anders, supra, 386 U.S.

738, counsel has identified the following possible, but not reasonably arguable issues for our consideration:

1. Whether the minor's motion to seal was granted in whole or in part;

2 2. Whether, in addition to sealing the records in JDA G5091 (the records subject to the motion in this case), the court should have sealed other records not specified in the motion to seal.

We have reviewed the entire record in this case. We have not identified any reasonably arguable issue for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented the minor on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The juvenile court's order is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

NARES, J.

McDONALD, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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