In re Gabriel G. CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D069016 · 2016-03-17 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from an order
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. JCM234010
Trial judge: Robert J. Trentacosta
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: delinquency
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Alex C. McDonald, McINTYRE

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T05:54Z · confidence high

The juvenile court dismissed the petition and sealed the records for case JDA G4865 but did not seal the records for the related case JDA G6946, as no request was made to do so. The Court of Appeal affirmed the order, finding no error because the issue of sealing the second case was not raised in the trial court.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Order sealing case JDA G4865 and dismissing the petition “The order sealing case JDA G4865 is affirmed.”	de novo	correct	agree with court The appellate court affirmed the sealing order because the record showed no error in the trial court's action regarding the specific case that was sealed. The court found no basis to disturb the trial court's exercise of discretion in sealing the records for JDA G4865.
Failure to seal case JDA G6946 “In our review we did not discover any request to seal case JDA G6946, nor any objection to the failure to seal that portion of the juvenile petition.”	unclear	not reached	agree with court The appellate court declined to review the failure to seal the second case because the issue was not raised or objected to in the juvenile court. The court determined it had nothing to review regarding why the second case was not sealed and directed the minor to seek relief in the trial court.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to identify any reasonably arguable issues and the court to independently review the record for error in criminal and juvenile cases where counsel finds no issues.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel who believes an appeal is frivolous, requiring a brief identifying potential issues and court review of the record.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the Wende/Anders framework to review the record for error. It properly identifies that the specific complaint regarding the unsealed case was not preserved for appeal because it was not raised in the trial court.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:30Z · confidence low

The juvenile court dismissed the Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition, terminated jurisdiction, and sealed the Minor's records as to case JDA G4865 but did not address sealing of the later petty theft matter, JDA G6946, which had been added to the same petition by amendment. On a Wende appeal in which counsel raised no arguable issue, the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no request or objection concerning JDA G6946 in the juvenile court, held there was nothing to review on that point, and affirmed the sealing order while noting the Minor could request sealing of JDA G6946 in the juvenile court.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Order dismissing petition JCM234010, terminating jurisdiction, and sealing records as to case JDA G4865 (reviewed under Wende/Anders independent record review) “We have reviewed the entire record as mandated by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, and have not discovered any reasonably arguable issue for reversal on appeal.”	unclear	correct	agree with court Counsel filed a Wende brief, the Minor filed nothing, and the court conducted the independent review Wende and Anders require. Nothing in the opinion suggests any defect in the order actually entered; the order sealing JDA G4865 was favorable to the Minor and unchallenged. Affirmance follows the standard Wende disposition. The court did not cite authority for extending Wende review to a delinquency appeal, but In re Kevin S. supports doing so, so the omission is not an error.
Juvenile court's failure to seal the portion of the petition relating to case JDA G6946 (petty theft) “In our review we did not discover any request to seal case JDA G6946, nor any objection to the failure to seal that portion of the juvenile petition.”	abuse of discretion	not reached	unsure The court treated the issue as not presented because no request or objection was made below and directed the Minor to seek relief in the juvenile court. On this sparse record that is a defensible course, and the court preserved the Minor's remedy. However, the opinion does not discuss whether sealing upon dismissal of a section 602 petition was mandatory under Welfare and Institutions Code section 786 (in effect when the petition was dismissed in July 2015) such that the omission of one count of the same petition could be raised despite the lack of objection, nor why only part of a single petition was sealed. Because the opinion gives no facts on satisfactory completion of probation or the basis for the partial sealing, I cannot say the court erred.

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 wholly frivolous may so advise the court and identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
missed: In re Kevin S. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 97 — Wende independent review procedures apply to appeals by minors in juvenile delinquency (Welfare and Institutions Code section 602) proceedings; the court applied Wende to this delinquency appeal without citing authority for doing so.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court properly performed Wende/Anders review, correctly observed that the JDA G6946 sealing question was never raised below, and sensibly directed the Minor to the juvenile court for relief while affirming the favorable order actually entered. It did not, however, address whether sealing of a dismissed section 602 petition was mandatory under Welfare and Institutions Code section 786 or why a single petition was sealed only in part, and it cited no authority for applying Wende in a delinquency appeal.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

Filed 3/17/16 In re Gabriel G. 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 GABRIEL G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D069016 THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. JCM234010)

v. GABRIEL G., Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Robert J.

Trentacosta, Judge. Affirmed.

Theresa Osterman Stevenson for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

In this case, Gabriel G. (the Minor) was originally charged with misdemeanor vandalism (Pen. Code,1 § 594, subd. (a)(b)(2)(A)); possession of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11357, subd. (b)), a misdemeanor; and possession of tobacco by a minor 1 All further statutory references are to Penal Code unless otherwise specified. (§ 308, subd. (b)), an infraction. The charges were listed as case JDA G4865 and filed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 as juvenile petition JCM234010. The Minor admitted the vandalism charge and the remaining charges were dismissed.

In June 2014, juvenile petition JCM234010 was amended to allege a new charge of petty theft. That charge was listed as case JDA G6946. The Minor admitted the petty theft and was continued on supervision as ordered in case JDA G4865.

In July 2015, the court dismissed the petition (JCM234010) and terminated jurisdiction. In the process, the court entered an order sealing the Minor's records as to case JDA G4865. No mention was made of case JDA G6946, either by the parties or by the court.

The Minor filed a notice of appeal from the "Order denying sealing of JCM234010 02/G6946."

Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating she has not been able to identify any reasonably arguable issue 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, however, the Minor has not responded.2

DISCUSSION

As we have noted, appellate counsel has not identified any reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, we have engaged 2 The facts of the underlying offenses are not relevant to the analysis of possible error based on this record. Therefore we will omit the traditional statement of facts. 2 in a review of the record for error. In accordance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), appellate counsel has identified the following possible, but not arguable issue to assist our review of the record:

Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion in failing to seal that portion of the record that relates to case JDA G6946.

We have reviewed the entire record as mandated by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, and have not discovered any reasonably arguable issue for reversal on appeal. In our review we did not discover any request to seal case JDA G6946, nor any objection to the failure to seal that portion of the juvenile petition.

As best we can tell the question of sealing that particular case has not yet been raised in the juvenile court. Thus we have nothing that would allow us to review the question of why the second case was not also sealed. The Minor's remedy, if any, in this case lies with an appropriate request to the juvenile court to consider sealing case JDA G6946, which was part of the underlying petition.

3 DISPOSITION

The order sealing case JDA G4865 is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

McDONALD, J.

McINTYRE, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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