In re Ruth D. CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from an order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. J237416
- Trial judge
- Robert J. Trentacosta
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- delinquency
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Judith L. Haller, Cynthia Aaron
Analysis
The trial court granted informal supervision to the minor, ordering a baseline drug test as a condition. The Court of Appeal affirmed the order after an independent review of the record found no reasonably arguable issues for reversal.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Order granting informal supervision with a condition to submit to a baseline drug test“Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion in ordering a baseline drug test as a condition of granting informal supervision.” | abuse of discretion | not reached | agree with court The court did not analyze the merits of the issue because it was not reasonably arguable. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to identify issues and the court to independently review the record for error in cases where counsel finds no arguable issues.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires counsel to file a brief identifying any possible, though not reasonably arguable, issues and the court to review the record.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it follows the Wende/Anders protocol for reviewing a record where counsel identifies no arguable issues. The court correctly notes that the specific issue raised (drug test condition) was not reasonably arguable and thus did not require a detailed merits analysis.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe juvenile court granted the Minor informal supervision under Welfare and Institutions Code section 654.2 on a misdemeanor methamphetamine-possession petition and ordered a baseline drug test as a condition. On appeal, counsel filed a Wende brief, the Minor filed nothing, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issue, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Order granting informal supervision under Welfare and Institutions Code section 654.2 conditioned on a baseline drug test“Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion in ordering a baseline drug test as a condition of granting informal supervision.” | abuse of discretion | correct | agree with court A baseline drug test is reasonably related to a petition alleging methamphetamine possession and to the rehabilitative purpose of informal supervision, and nothing in the opinion suggests the condition was unreasonable or beyond the court's authority. The court conducted the independent Wende/Anders review and found no arguable issue; on this record there is no basis to disagree, though the opinion offers almost no analysis of the condition itself or of the appealability of a section 654.2 order entered before any jurisdictional finding. |
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 error.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal frivolous must so advise the court and refer to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court followed the Wende/Anders procedure, identified the only potential issue counsel flagged, reviewed the whole record, and reached a defensible result. It did not, however, explain why a drug-test condition tied to a drug-possession petition was within the court's discretion, nor address whether an informal-supervision order under section 654.2, entered before adjudication, is an appealable order under Welfare and Institutions Code section 800.
Opinion
Filed 3/23/16 In re Ruth 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 RUTH D., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D068905 THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. J237416)
v. RUTH D., Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Robert J.
Trentacosta, Judge. Affirmed.
David R. Greifinger for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In July 2015 a petition was filed in the juvenile court alleging that Ruth D. (the Minor) possessed methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)), a misdemeanor. It was also alleged the Minor possessed paraphernalia related to tobacco and controlled substances (Pen. Code, § 308, subd. (b)), an infraction. The Minor was granted informal supervision pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 654.2. The court ordered the Minor to submit to a drug test to establish a baseline.
The Minor filed a timely notice of appeal.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating he has been unable 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 her own brief on appeal, however, the Minor has not responded.1
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On June 1, 2015 police stopped the Minor and several friends in a car about 3:30 a.m. Police discovered methamphetamine in the Minor's purse.
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, appellate counsel has not identified any reasonably arguable issues for reversal of the juvenile court's order. In order to assist this court in our review of the record, and as required by Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), appellate counsel has identified the following possible, but not reasonably arguable issue:
Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion in ordering a baseline drug test as a condition of granting informal supervision.
1 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 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. Competent counsel has represented the Minor on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The order granting informal supervision, based on the stated conditions, is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
HALLER, J.
AARON, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12