In re L.A. CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. J228549
- Trial judge
- Browder A. Willis
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- delinquency
- Panel
- Joan K. Irion (author), Cynthia Aaron, Patricia D. Benke
Analysis
The juvenile court dismissed the petition, terminated jurisdiction, and sealed the file pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 786. On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record found no reasonably arguable issues.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Dismissal of petition, termination of jurisdiction, and sealing of the file under Welfare and Institutions Code section 786.“the juvenile court dismissed the petition, terminated jurisdiction and sealed the file pursuant to section 786.” | unclear | not reached | unsure The appellate court did not review the merits of the trial court's ruling because appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief presenting no argument for reversal, and the court's independent review of the record disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to review the record for error and file a brief if no arguable issues are found, or to invite the court to review the record independently.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to file a brief identifying any arguable issues and to request leave to withdraw, allowing the court to conduct an independent review of the record.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for handling appeals where appointed counsel finds no arguable issues. The court explicitly states it conducted an independent review of the entire record and found no error, which satisfies the procedural requirements for affirming in such cases.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe juvenile court, after a section 602 petition was filed against L.A. in October 2014 and following an August 2015 review hearing on the probation department's recommendation, dismissed the petition, terminated jurisdiction, and sealed the file under Welfare and Institutions Code section 786. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief raising no arguable issues, L.A. filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no reasonably arguable issues, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Judgment dismissing the section 602 petition (JDA No. G7608), terminating juvenile court jurisdiction, and sealing the file pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 786.“At an August 2015 review hearing, after considering the recommendation of the probation department, the juvenile court dismissed the petition, terminated jurisdiction and sealed the file pursuant to section 786.” | de novo | correct | agree with court The court conducted the independent record review required by Wende and Anders rather than applying a conventional deferential standard, and found nothing arguable. The disposition described was wholly favorable to the minor (dismissal and sealing), so there is no apparent prejudice to L.A. and no basis in the opinion to doubt the result. |
Possible issue identified by counsel under Anders: whether the juvenile court denied, or L.A. ever made, a request to seal the file in the earlier matter (JDA No. F7937) in which jurisdiction was terminated in December 2011.“Our review of the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues.” | de novo | correct | unsure The court did not separately analyze this Anders issue; it simply concluded after independent review that no arguable issue exists. The opinion does not state whether a sealing request for F7937 was ever made or ruled upon, so a reader cannot verify the conclusion from the opinion alone, though a Wende opinion is not required to explain rejected potential issues. |
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 before affirming.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal lacks merit must so advise the court and identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, and the court must then examine the record.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court followed the standard Wende/Anders procedure: it recited the facts and procedural history, noted the potential issues counsel flagged, confirmed the minor was invited to file a supplemental brief, and stated it independently reviewed the record and found no arguable issues. It did not cite authority confirming Wende review applies in juvenile delinquency appeals or explain why the F7937 sealing question was not arguable, but neither omission affects the defensibility of affirming a disposition that dismissed the petition and sealed the record in the minor's favor.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
record incompleteOpinion
Filed 5/19/16 In re L.A. 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 L.A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D068703 THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. J228549)
v. L.A., Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Browder A. Willis, Judge. Affirmed.
Patrick J. Hennessey, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. L.A. appeals from a judgment dismissing the petition, terminating jurisdiction and sealing the file pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 786. (Further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.) L.A.'s brief on appeal, filed by appointed appellate counsel, presents no argument for reversal, but invites this court to review the record for error in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). L.A. did not respond to separate invitations from appellate counsel and from this court to file a supplemental brief. After independently reviewing the entire record for error as required by Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S.
738 (Anders) and Wende, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In March 2011, the People filed a section 602 amended petition (JDA No. F7937)
charging L.A. with five counts of marijuana-related violations of the Health and Safety Code. In April 2011, L.A. admitted to one count, and the juvenile court dismissed the remaining four counts. At the request of the probation department, in December 2011 the court vacated the previously ordered commitment/placement for L.A. and terminated jurisdiction.
In October 2014, the People filed a new section 602 petition (JDA No. G7608)
charging L.A. with two counts of marijuana-related violations of the Health and Safety Code, one count of presenting a false identification in violation of Penal Code section 148.9, one count of a curfew violation in violation of San Diego Municipal Code section 58.0102, subdivision (a), and one count of possession of tobacco in violation of Penal Code section 308, subdivision (b). At an August 2015 review hearing, after 2 considering the recommendation of the probation department, the juvenile court dismissed the petition, terminated jurisdiction and sealed the file pursuant to section 786.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings in the trial court. Counsel presented no argument for reversal but invited this court to review the record for error in accordance with Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.
Pursuant to Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, counsel identified as possible but not arguable issues: (1) whether the trial court denied L.A.'s request to seal the file in JDA No. F7937 — i.e., the matter in which the juvenile court terminated jurisdiction in December 2011; and (2) whether L.A. ever filed a request to seal the file in JDA No. F7937.
Counsel invited L.A. to file a brief on his own behalf, and we granted L.A.
permission to file a brief on his own behalf. L.A. has not responded.
Our review of the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues.
L.A. has been adequately represented by counsel in this appeal.
3 DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
IRION, J.
WE CONCUR:
BENKE, Acting P. J.
AARON, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12