In re R.D. CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D077698 · 2020-12-23 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a Judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. J240364
Trial judge: Tilisha Martin
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: delinquency
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Judith L. Haller, Joan K. Irion

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T05:17Z · confidence low

The juvenile court denied the minor's petition to terminate wardship and committed him to the Division of Juvenile Justice for a term of up to four years and ten months. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, finding no arguable issues for reversal.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Commitment to the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) and denial of petition to terminate wardship “We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The opinion does not explicitly state the standard of review applied to the specific issues (least restrictive environment or abuse of discretion in failing to terminate wardship). It only states that the court reviewed the record and found no arguable issues. Therefore, the standard is unclear from the text provided.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to review the record for arguable issues when no issues are identified, and the court to conduct an independent review.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to file a brief identifying potential issues and request the court to review the record when no arguable issues are found.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound in that it follows the Wende/Anders protocol by identifying potential issues and stating that an independent review was conducted. However, it is substantively thin because it fails to provide any specific reasoning or legal analysis for why the identified issues (least restrictive environment and termination of wardship) were not arguable, merely stating that no errors were found.

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 denied R.D.'s petition to terminate his wardship after he turned 18 and committed him to the Division of Juvenile Justice for up to four years ten months, following a criminal threats adjudication, repeated probation violations, new assault and ammunition offenses, and failure in the Breaking Cycles and Youth Offender Unit programs. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief, the Minor filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Commitment of the Minor to DJJ, including whether the juvenile court considered less restrictive placement alternatives “The commitment was based on the separate offense and over two years of failure on probation, and failure in less restrictive placements.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The opinion does not state a standard of review, but the facts recited—multiple admitted probation violations over two years, new offenses including an assault in juvenile hall, and termination from the YOU program after placement in Breaking Cycles—are the kind of record that ordinarily supports a finding that less restrictive alternatives were tried and failed. Under Wende independent review, the court's conclusion that no arguable issue exists is consistent with the recited history, though the opinion gives no detail on the court's express findings.
Denial of the Minor's petition to terminate wardship after he turned 18 “Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion in failing to terminate the Minor’s wardship given that the Minor had already turned 18.”	abuse of discretion	correct	agree with court Turning 18 does not by itself end juvenile court jurisdiction, and the juvenile court retains discretion to continue wardship and commit a ward to DJJ given a pending petition and a documented record of failure on probation. Nothing in the opinion suggests the juvenile court lacked a basis to keep jurisdiction, so the appellate court's finding of no arguable issue appears supportable, though the opinion does not discuss the governing statutes.

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 lacks merit must file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion follows the standard Wende/Anders procedure: counsel identified potential issues, the Minor was offered a chance to file his own brief, and the court independently reviewed the record and found no arguable issues, which is all the law requires in this posture. It does not cite the statutory or case-law standards governing DJJ commitments or termination of wardship, but a Wende affirmance need not explain the merits of issues found non-arguable, so the omission is not a defect in the result.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 12/23/20 In re R.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 R.D., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D077698 THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. J240364)

v. R.D., Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a Judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Tilisha Martin, Judge. Affirmed. Sheila O’Connor, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. This appeal arises from an order of the juvenile court committing R.D. (the Minor) to the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). The commitment was based on the separate offense and over two years of failure on probation, and failure in less restrictive placements. PRECEDURAL BACKGROUND In August 2017, the Minor admitted a violation of Penal Code,1 section 422 (criminal threats) and was declared a ward of the court. The Minor was placed in custody of the Breaking Cycles Program and later released home. In January, June, and September 2018, the Minor admitted multiple probation violations. In August 2019, the Minor admitted committing an assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)) and possession of ammunition. He was placed in the Youth Offender Unit (YOU) program. The Minor was later terminated from the YOU program for behavior violations and poor performance. In June 2020, the Minor petitioned to terminate the wardship since he had turned 18. The court denied the petition and committed the Minor to DJJ for the term of up to four years 10 months. 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 she has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered the Minor the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. STATEMENT OF FACTS The first offense was committed August 6, 2017. At that time, Sheriff’s Deputies were called to the Minor’s home where a fight had taken place between the Minor and his stepfather. During the affray the Minor assaulted the stepfather and threatened to kill him.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 The second offense occurred on July 27, 2019. At that time, deputies were again at the house and discovered a sock full of ammunition. The third offense occurred on July 29, 2019. At that time, the Minor assaulted another minor while in custody at the Juvenile Hall. DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to review the record for error. To assist the court in its review of the record, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified the following possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: 1. Whether the juvenile court considered the least restrictive environment when considering the placement of the Minor; and 2. Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion in failing to terminate the Minor’s wardship given that the Minor had already turned 18. We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented the Minor on this appeal.

3 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

HALLER, J.

IRION, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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