In re Aldo R. CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D069176 · 2016-05-18 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. J234348
Trial judge: Browder A. Willis III
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: delinquency
Panel: Judith L. Haller (author), Alex C. McDonald, Joan K. Irion

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T05:49Z · confidence high

The trial court sealed records and terminated jurisdiction only for the third petition (G5856) after reclassifying the offense as a misdemeanor, but did not seal records for the first two petitions or rule on DNA expungement. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, finding no reasonably arguable issues on appeal after a Wende review.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Trial court's decision to limit the sealing order to the third petition (G5856) and not seal records for the first and second petitions. “The trial court properly limited its sealing order to the third petition, G5856. (In re Y.A. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 523, 525.)”	de novo	correct	agree with court The appellate court correctly applied the law from In re Y.A. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 523, which holds that a juvenile court's order sealing records for a specific petition does not automatically extend to other, unrelated petitions. Since the first two petitions involved separate incidents and were not part of the specific probation terms being dismissed in the third petition's context, the trial court was not required to seal them without a specific request or finding.
Trial court's failure to rule on the request for DNA expungement. “Further, because Minor's counsel did not renew his request for DNA expungement with the trial court, the issue is not properly before us.”	unclear	not reached	agree with court The appellate court declined to review the merits of the DNA expungement request because the appellant failed to preserve the issue by renewing the request in the trial court. Under standard appellate procedure, issues not raised or preserved in the trial court are generally waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal unless plain error is shown, which was not argued here.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Establishes the duty of appellate counsel to identify arguable issues and the court's independent duty to review the record for error when no issues are identified (Wende review). The court relied on this to justify its full record review.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to file a brief identifying any arguable issues, even if none are found, and allows the court to review the record. The court relied on this to structure its review process.
relied: In re Y.A. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 523 — Holds that a juvenile court's order sealing records for a specific petition does not automatically extend to other, unrelated petitions. The court relied on this to affirm the trial court's limitation of the sealing order to the third petition.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the Wende/Anders framework to review the record when no arguable issues are identified. It correctly applies the specific legal precedent (In re Y.A.) to the factual distinction between the petitions and correctly applies the waiver doctrine to the unpreserved DNA expungement issue.

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, at a September 2015 annual review hearing, found Minor had satisfactorily completed probation on his third petition (felony burglary reclassified as a misdemeanor under Proposition 47), dismissed that petition, sealed only its records, and terminated jurisdiction without ruling on a previously filed DNA expungement request that counsel did not renew. On a Wende/Anders appeal with no appearance by the People, the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issue, held the sealing order was properly limited to the third petition under In re Y.A., held the DNA expungement issue was not properly before it because it was not renewed below, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Limiting the Welfare and Institutions Code section 786 sealing order to the records of the third petition (G5856) rather than also sealing records of the first and second petitions “The trial court properly limited its sealing order to the third petition, G5856.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The court cites In re Y.A. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 523, a published decision addressing the scope of sealing under the version of section 786 in effect at the time of the hearing, which supports limiting sealing to the petition on which probation was satisfactorily completed. The opinion does not explain Y.A.'s holding or the statutory text, but the citation is on point and the hearing occurred before the January 2016 amendments, so the conclusion appears supported.
Failure to rule on Minor's earlier request for DNA expungement following Proposition 47 reclassification, which counsel did not renew at the termination hearing “because Minor's counsel did not renew his request for DNA expungement with the trial court, the issue is not properly before us.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The court treats the issue as forfeited for failure to renew the request. This is a defensible application of ordinary preservation principles, but the opinion cites no forfeiture authority and does not address the fact that the trial court had expressly ordered that the resolution of Alejandro N. would 'also apply to [Minor's] case,' which arguably kept the request pending without need for renewal. Because the opinion does not engage with that order, I cannot say the court erred, but the reasoning is thin.

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 error.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal without merit may file a brief identifying anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal to assist the reviewing court.
relied: In re Y.A. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 523 — Under Welfare and Institutions Code section 786 as then in effect, a juvenile court's sealing order upon satisfactory completion of probation is limited to the records of the petition on which probation was completed, not records of prior petitions.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is a brief Wende review that reaches a defensible result and cites a published, on-point authority for the sealing issue. It does not explain the holding of In re Y.A., cites no authority for treating the DNA expungement request as forfeited, and does not address the trial court's earlier order making the Alejandro N. resolution applicable to Minor's case, which bears on whether renewal was required.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

Filed 5/18/16 In re Aldo R. 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 ALDO R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D069176 THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. J234348)

v. ALDO R., Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Browder A. Willis III, Judge. Affirmed.

Kendall Dawson Wasley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

In 2013 and 2014, the district attorney filed three separate petitions against Aldo R. (Minor) alleging offenses for unrelated incidents; the alleged offenses in the last two petitions occurred while Minor was on probation for his prior offense(s). The first petition (G5284) alleges that he battered his girlfriend in violation of Penal Code section 243, subdivision (e)(1), which Minor admitted. The court declared his wardship and placed him on probation.

The second petition (G5673) alleges that Minor violated a protective order over his girlfriend (Pen. Code, § 273.6, subd. (a)), which he again admitted. The court continued his wardship and placed him on probation.

The third petition (G5856) alleges that Minor burglarized a grocery store, classified at the time as a felony (Pen. Code, § 459), which he also admitted. The court continued his wardship, placed him on probation, committed him to the Short Term Offender Program (STOP) for a period not to exceed 90 days, and after Minor violated his probation terms, additionally committed him to Camp Barrett for a period not to exceed 365 days.

In late 2014, Minor petitioned the court to reduce his felony burglary offense to a misdemeanor under Proposition 47, and relatedly, requested DNA expungement. The People opposed his request for DNA expungement. Although the court reclassified his felony offense as a misdemeanor, it did not rule on his request for DNA expungement.

Instead, the court joined his case with another case for Proposition 47-related writ 2 proceedings (Alejandro N.)1 and ordered that the resolution of Alejandro N. would "also apply to [Minor's] case."

At Minor's September 2015 annual review hearing, his probation officer reported that Minor successfully completed his program at Camp Barrett. The court found that Minor satisfactorily completed the terms of probation for the offense alleged in the third petition (G5856), dismissed the petition, sealed all records pertaining to it, and terminated jurisdiction. Minor's counsel did not request (1) sealing for the records pertaining to his first and second petitions or (2) DNA expungement.

Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979)

25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) raising possible, but not arguable issues. Counsel asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Minor the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he 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 in a review of the record for error. Pursuant to Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, appellate 1 Alejandro N. v. Superior Court of San Diego County (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1209, was filed on July 23, 2015. The minor's petition for writ of mandate in that case raised the issues of Proposition 47's applicability to juvenile offenders as well as the propriety of DNA expungement based on a reclassified misdemeanor. (Id. at pp. 1216- 1217.)

2 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. 3 counsel has identified the following possible, but not arguable issues to assist our review of the record:

1. Whether the juvenile court erred by not sealing the records of the first and second petitions under the law at the time of the hearing?

2. Whether the issue of counsel's failure to renew the request to expunge [Minor's]

DNA from the state's data bank is properly before this court?

We have reviewed the entire record in accordance with Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the issues suggested by counsel, and have not found any reasonably arguable issue for reversal on appeal. The trial court properly limited its sealing order to the third petition, G5856. (In re Y.A.

(2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 523, 525.) Further, because Minor's counsel did not renew his request for DNA expungement with the trial court, the issue is not properly before us.

Competent counsel has represented Minor in this appeal.

4 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
Alejandro N. v. Superior Court D067445 · 2015-07-23
People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12