In re Sarah M. CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. J233608
- Trial judge
- Robert J. Trentacosta
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- delinquency
- Panel
- Judith L. Haller (author), Alex C. McDonald, Joan K. Irion
Analysis
The trial court sealed records for petition G4522 but did not address or seal records for petition G4365, as the minor had not requested sealing for the latter. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, finding no error because the minor never filed a request to seal the G4365 records.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of motion to seal records for petition G4365“Minor did not request sealing G4365, and the court properly limited its sealing order to G4522. (In re Y.A. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 523, 525.)” | de novo | correct | agree with court agree with court |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Appellate counsel must review the record for error when no arguable issues are identified.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 368 U.S. 738 — Appellate counsel must file a brief identifying any possible, but not arguable, issues.
- relied: In re Y.A. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 523 — A court is not required to seal records for a petition if the minor did not request sealing for that specific petition.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly applies the Wende/Anders framework to review the record and relies on In re Y.A. to support the conclusion that the trial court was not obligated to seal records for a petition for which no sealing request was made. The reasoning is concise and directly addresses the only issue raised by appellate counsel.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe juvenile court found that Sarah M. had satisfactorily completed probation on petition G4522, dismissed that petition and sealed its records, but did not address or seal the records of the earlier petition G4365; the minor appealed, characterizing the omission as a denial of a motion to seal G4365. Appellate counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief, the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found the minor never requested sealing of G4365 and that the court properly limited its sealing order to G4522, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Limiting the Welfare and Institutions Code section 786 dismissal and record-sealing order to petition G4522 and not sealing records of petition G4365“Minor did not request sealing G4365, and the court properly limited its sealing order to G4522. (In re Y.A. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 523, 525.)” | unclear | correct | agree with court The court conducted an independent Wende review and resolved the one possible issue counsel flagged by finding, from the record, that no sealing request was ever made as to G4365. Its citation to In re Y.A., which held that section 786 (as then written) authorizes dismissal and sealing only of the petition on which probation was satisfactorily completed, supports the conclusion that the juvenile court acted within its authority in sealing only G4522. Nothing in the opinion suggests a legal error, though the brevity of the opinion limits verification. |
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 wholly frivolous may so advise the court and file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
- relied: In re Y.A. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 523 — Welfare and Institutions Code section 786 requires dismissal and sealing only of the petition on which the minor satisfactorily completed probation, not of other, earlier petitions.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion follows the required Wende procedure, addresses the single possible issue identified by counsel, and resolves it with a record finding (no sealing request was made) and a then-recent published authority on the scope of section 786 sealing. It is brief and does not elaborate on the statutory analysis, and it miscites the Anders reporter volume inconsistently (368 vs. 386 U.S.), but the result is defensible on the authority cited.
Opinion
Filed 5/12/16 In re Sarah M. 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 SARAH M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D069226 THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. J233608)
v. SARAH M., Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Robert J.
Trentacosta, Judge. Affirmed.
Patrick J. Hennessey, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
In June and July of 2013, the district attorney filed two separate petitions against Sarah M. (Minor) alleging offenses for unrelated incidents. The first petition (G4365) alleges that she battered her mother in violation of Penal Code section 242. She admitted the offense, and the court sustained the petition.
The second petition (G4522) alleges that Minor battered a girl on school property in violation of Penal Code section 243.2, subdivision (a)(1), which Minor admitted. The court declared her wardship and placed her on probation. In September 2015, the court found that Minor satisfactorily completed the terms of her probation for the offense alleged in G4522, dismissed the petition, and sealed all records pertaining to it. The court did not address or seal the records relating to G4365. Minor's notice of appeal indicates that she appeals the court's denial of her motion to seal G4365.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 368 U.S. 738 (Anders) raising a possible, but not arguable issue. Counsel asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Minor the opportunity to file her own brief on appeal, but she has not responded.1
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 in a review of the record for error. Pursuant to Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, appellate counsel informs us that he reviewed the following possible, but not arguable issue:
"whether the trial court actually denied a request for the sealing of all records in case 1 The facts of the underlying offenses are not relevant to the analysis of possible error based on this record. Therefore, we omit the traditional statement of facts. 2 G4365 and/or whether [Minor] ever filed a request to have that particular petition sealed."
We have reviewed the entire record in accordance with Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 368 U.S. 738, including the issue raised by counsel, and have not found any reasonably arguable appellate issues. Minor did not request sealing G4365, and the court properly limited its sealing order to G4522. (In re Y.A. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 523, 525.)
Competent counsel has represented Minor in this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HALLER, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
McDONALD, J.
IRION, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Y.A. D068405 · 2016-04-14
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12