In re Yobani R. CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a disposition order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. JCM243948
- Trial judge
- Ana Espana
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- delinquency
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), O'Rourke, William S. Dato
Analysis
The juvenile court found true counts for arson, malicious destruction of property, and false identification, and placed the minor on probation for three years and two months. The Court of Appeal affirmed the disposition 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
Disposition order placing the minor on probation for three years and two months following true findings on counts 1, 2, and 4.“The juvenile court’s disposition order is affirmed.” | unclear | not reached | unsure The opinion is a Wende/Anders review where the court states it has reviewed the entire record and found no arguable issues for reversal. It does not explicitly state the standard of review (e.g., substantial evidence, abuse of discretion) for the specific disposition or the underlying findings, nor does it provide detailed reasoning for affirming the specific probation term, only that no error was discovered. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to review the record for error and file a brief identifying arguable issues, or stating none exist, in cases where counsel finds no merit.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to file a brief identifying potential issues and requesting the court to review the record when counsel believes the appeal is frivolous.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it follows the established Wende/Anders protocol for reviewing appeals where counsel identifies no merit. However, it is a summary disposition that does not engage with the specific legal standards for the underlying findings or the disposition itself, relying solely on the court's independent review finding no error.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe juvenile court sustained a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition, finding true allegations of arson (Pen. Code, § 451, subd. (d)), malicious destruction of property (§ 594, subds. (a), (b)(1)), and giving false identification to a police officer (§ 148.9, subd. (a)), and placed the Minor on probation for three years two months. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief; the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed the disposition order.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
True findings on arson, malicious destruction of property, and false identification (sufficiency of the evidence, identified as a possible Anders issue)“Was there sufficient evidence to prove that the Minor committed the offenses?” | substantial evidence | correct | agree with court The recited facts show surveillance video of the Minor entering the school grounds with a companion, smoke appearing while they were in the area, a fist bump, melted plastic bearing the Minor's shoe pattern recovered from his shoe, a torch-style lighter in his pocket, matching clothing at arrest less than a mile away, and an admitted false name given to police. That is ample circumstantial evidence supporting each true finding under the deferential substantial-evidence standard, and the Minor presented no evidence. Although the opinion does not articulate the standard, the facts it incorporates make the conclusion that no arguable sufficiency issue exists well supported. |
Admission of an audio recording of discussions with the Minor captured on a body-worn camera (identified as a possible Anders issue)“Whether the court erred in admitting an audio recording of discussions with the Minor, which were heard on a body worn camera.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The opinion does not describe the content of the recording, the objection made, or the basis for admission; it simply reports that after full record review no arguable issue was found. Evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion, and the independent-review procedure under Wende and Anders is the correct method for a no-issue brief. Nothing in the opinion suggests the ruling was erroneous or prejudicial, particularly given the strength of the video and physical evidence, but the opinion provides too little detail to assess the ruling on its merits independently. |
Disposition order placing the Minor on probation for three years two months (reviewed under Wende for any arguable error)“We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The court conducted the independent record review Wende and Anders require after counsel filed a no-issue brief and the Minor declined to file a supplemental brief. The opinion recites that competent counsel represented the Minor and that no arguable issues were found. Nothing in the recited record suggests the probation disposition was unauthorized or an abuse of discretion, and the Wende procedure was properly followed. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel files a brief raising 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 to lack merit may so advise the court but should identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
The appellate opinion: sound — The court followed the Wende/Anders procedure correctly: counsel identified possible issues, the Minor was invited to file his own brief, and the court independently reviewed the record before concluding no arguable issue existed. The opinion does not cite authority confirming Wende review applies in juvenile delinquency appeals and does not articulate standards of review, but those omissions do not affect the result given the strong evidence recited.
Opinion
Filed 6/13/22 In re Yobani 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 YOBANI R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D079889 THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. JCM243948)
v. YOBANI R., Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a disposition order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Ana Espana, Judge. Affirmed. John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. The juvenile court made true findings on several offenses alleged against Yobani R. (the Minor) in a petition filed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. Specifically, the court found true count 1, arson in violation of Penal Code1 section 451, subdivision (d); count 2, malicious destruction of property in violation of section 594, subdivisions (a) and (b)(1); and count 4, false identification to a police officer in violation of section 148.9, subdivision (a). At the disposition hearing, the court placed the Minor on probation for three years two 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 counsel 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 appellant’s opening brief contains an accurate summary of the facts of the offenses. We will incorporate the statement here for convenience. “A. The Prosecution Evidence. “On June 30, 2021, Escondido police officer Andrew Maxwell went to Central Elementary School in Escondido in response to a report of a fire. Maxwell saw a large plume of smoke. There was a large fire on the school grounds. The Fire Department arrived and extinguished the flames. “Officer Matthew Nelson of the City of Escondido Police Department was an arson investigator. Nelson and his partner went to the school. Nelson saw smoldering debris in the area of the playground. The debris was the remains of a child’s play structure. A school employee provided video surveillance recordings. A still photograph from the video surveillance 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. 2 recordings showed two individuals. The still photograph was sent out to other officers for identification. Nelson received a short time later a communication from a sergeant that two subjects who were skateboarding had been detained in front of City Hall. “Nelson drove to City Hall which was less than a mile from the school. Officer Larsen was there with [the Minor] and David [A]. [The Minor] wore blue jeans slightly rolled at the bottom, white shoes, and a black shirt. He had a black backpack. [The Minor] told Larsen his name was Brian Ramirez. The officers determined that Brian Ramirez was not [the Minor]’s true name. [The Minor] then admitted his identity. Larsen removed a lighter from [the Minor]’s left pants pocket. Nelson verified the lighter functioned. The lighter would almost be considered a torch lighter. It produced a hotter and more consistent flame than a standard lighter. It had a pressurized source that pushed the gas from the lighter at a higher rate than standard lighters. The lighter had a forced gas operated flame. [David A.] and [the Minor] were detained and taken to the police station. “The next day, Nelson reviewed the school’s surveillance videotapes. The video showed [the Minor], at the date and time mark of June 30 at 4:50 p.m., jump over the gate structure and open the gate so [David A.] could enter. They walked to the center of the school to the area where the playground structure was burned. The video surveillance showed [David A.] and [the Minor] wearing the same clothing that they wore when they were arrested at City Hall. They appeared to be drinking from an aluminum can. The police found two crushed beer cans. “The defendants went in and out of the frame of the surveillance camera. This area was near the playground structure that burned. The video showed smoke in the upper left hand corner at three minutes and 23 3 seconds. The defendants gave each other a high five also known as a fist bump. [The Minor] paused to scrape debris off of the bottom of his shoe. They defendants then left. A piece of melted plastic had adhered to the bottom of [the Minor]’s shoe. It was recovered by the police. [The Minor]’s shoe pattern had melted into the piece of plastic. The video surveillance tapes showed a third person on the school grounds, but that person left before the fire started. “The destroyed playground structure cost almost $50,000 to replace. “B. The Defense Evidence. “[The Minor] did not present any evidence.” 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, 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. Was there sufficient evidence to prove that the Minor committed the offenses? 2. Whether the court erred in admitting an audio recording of discussions with the Minor, which were heard on a body worn camera. 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.
4 DISPOSITION The juvenile court’s disposition order is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
O’ROURKE, J.
DATO, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12