In re Jacob K. CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D080118 · 2022-08-24 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. JCM240806
Trial judge: Rohanee Zapanta
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: delinquency
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Joan K. Irion, William S. Dato

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:45Z · confidence low

The juvenile court adjudicated the minor a delinquent for violating Penal Code section 148.9, terminated his prior probation, and committed him to Urban Camp for up to 130 days. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, finding no arguable issues for reversal.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Adjudication of delinquency for violation of Penal Code section 148.9, subd. (a) “Following an adjudication hearing, the juvenile court found Jacob K. (the Minor) violated Penal Code section 148.9, subd. (a), a misdemeanor.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The opinion does not explicitly state the standard of review for the underlying adjudication, but the court's Wende review implies a search for any error in the record. The court found no arguable issues, effectively upholding the trial court's finding.
Termination of probation on a prior offense “The court terminated probation on the earlier case and committed the Minor to Urban Camp on the present case for a period not to exceed 130 days.”	abuse of discretion	not reached	unsure Counsel identified this as a potential issue of abuse of discretion, but the court stated it had reviewed the record and found no arguable issues for reversal, implying the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
Commitment to Urban Camp for up to 130 days “The court terminated probation on the earlier case and committed the Minor to Urban Camp on the present case for a period not to exceed 130 days.”	abuse of discretion	not reached	unsure Similar to the probation termination, counsel raised this as a potential abuse of discretion, but the appellate court found no arguable error in the record to support reversal.
Denial of request to take judicial notice of father's death “Whether the court abused its discretion by denying the Minor’s request to take judicial notice that his father was deceased.”	abuse of discretion	not reached	unsure The court listed this as an issue considered by counsel but found no arguable issues for reversal after its own review of the record.
Admission of testimony from Officer Baptiste without a written report “Whether the court abused its discretion when the court allowed Agent Baptiste to testify when the People did not supply a report but did provide a body-worn camera video.”	abuse of discretion	not reached	unsure The court considered this evidentiary issue but concluded no arguable error existed in the record.
Legality of the Minor's detention “Whether the Minor’s detention was unlawful.”	de novo	not reached	unsure While the facts detail a 51-minute detention, the court did not explicitly analyze the legality of the detention under the Fourth Amendment or state law, merely stating no arguable issues were found.
Order for $50 restitution “Whether the court abused its discretion by ordering $50 in restitution.”	abuse of discretion	not reached	unsure The court listed this as a potential issue but found no arguable error in the record.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to identify arguable issues and the court to independently review the record for error when counsel finds none.
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 no arguable issues are found.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for reviewing a case where appointed counsel finds no arguable issues. However, it provides no substantive legal analysis for the specific issues raised by counsel, such as the legality of the 51-minute detention or the evidentiary rulings, leaving the reader to infer that the record contained no errors without explanation.

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 found that the Minor violated Penal Code section 148.9, subdivision (a) by giving officers a false name during a detention, terminated his probation on an earlier case, and committed him to Urban Camp for up to 130 days. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief; the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Adjudication that the Minor violated Penal Code section 148.9, subdivision (a) (false identification to a peace officer), reviewed under Wende/Anders independent review of the entire record “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 recited testimony shows the Minor, while detained as a passenger in a stopped vehicle in which a firearm had been found, gave the name Christopher L.L., which dispatch could not verify, and his true identity was learned only from his mother. That is substantial evidence of each element of section 148.9(a), and a Wende review finding no arguable issue is consistent with the record described.
Termination of the Minor's probation on the earlier case “Whether the court abused its discretion by terminating the earlier grant of probation.”	abuse of discretion	correct	unsure The opinion recites that the Minor committed a new offense while on probation, which ordinarily supports terminating probation; but the opinion provides no detail on the earlier case or the court's stated reasons, so the conclusion cannot be independently verified beyond the court's statement that it found no arguable issue.
Denial of the Minor's request for judicial notice that his father was deceased “Whether the court abused its discretion by denying the Minor’s request to take judicial notice that his father was deceased.”	abuse of discretion	correct	unsure The opinion does not describe the basis for the request or its relevance to the adjudication or disposition, so there is no way to evaluate the ruling beyond the appellate court's representation that its record review disclosed no arguable error.
Allowing Officer Baptiste to testify despite the People not supplying a written report (body-worn camera video was provided) “Whether the court abused its discretion when the court allowed Agent Baptiste to testify when the People did not supply a report but did provide a body-worn camera video.”	abuse of discretion	correct	agree with court Discovery sanctions, including exclusion of testimony, are discretionary and exclusion is a remedy of last resort; where the defense received the body-worn camera video, allowing the officer to testify is within the court's discretion. The opinion gives no facts suggesting prejudice from the absence of a report.
Lawfulness of the Minor's detention (an element of section 148.9, subdivision (a), which requires a lawful detention or arrest) “At the time he had been detained, the Minor had no weapons, and nobody suspected him of a crime—he was just merely a passenger in the vehicle that had been stopped.”	unclear	correct	agree with court Passengers may be detained for the duration of a lawful traffic stop, and the discovery of a firearm in the vehicle justified holding and identifying all occupants; the false name was given 16 minutes into the detention, before any undue prolongation, and the extended time was attributable in part to the Minor's own false identification. The result is defensible, though the opinion does not analyze the issue.
Dispositional commitment of the Minor to Urban Camp for a period not to exceed 130 days “The court terminated probation on the earlier case and committed the Minor to Urban Camp on the present case for a period not to exceed 130 days.”	abuse of discretion	correct	unsure A juvenile court has broad discretion in fashioning a disposition, and a camp commitment for a minor who reoffended while on probation and had an outstanding felony warrant is within the range of reasonable choices; the opinion, however, recites none of the court's findings or the probation report, so the ruling cannot be fully assessed.
Order of $50 in restitution “Whether the court abused its discretion by ordering $50 in restitution.”	abuse of discretion	correct	unsure The opinion does not state whether this was a restitution fine or victim restitution or the basis for the amount, so beyond the court's statement that no arguable issue exists, the ruling cannot be independently evaluated.

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 before affirming.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous must file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, and the court must then independently examine the record.
missed: In re Kevin S. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 97 — Wende independent-review procedures apply to appeals by minors in juvenile delinquency proceedings; the court applied Wende review without citing the authority establishing that it governs delinquency appeals.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the standard Wende/Anders procedure, lists the issues counsel considered, and states that an independent review of the entire record disclosed no arguable issue, which is sufficient for a no-issue affirmance. It does not, however, analyze any of the six identified issues or cite the authority confirming that Wende review applies in delinquency appeals, leaving the reader to rely on the court's bare assurance.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 8/24/22 In re Jacob K. 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 Jacob K., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D080118 THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. JCM240806)

v. JACOB K., Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Rohanee Zapanta, Judge. Affirmed. Elisabeth R. Cannon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Following an adjudication hearing, the juvenile court found Jacob K. (the Minor) violated Penal Code section 148.9, subd. (a), a misdemeanor. The Minor was already on probation for a previous offense at the time of the current violation. The court terminated probation on the earlier case and committed the Minor to Urban Camp on the present case for a period not to exceed 130 days. The Minor filed a 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 Appellate counsel has provided a summary of the evidence produced at the adjudication hearing. We will incorporate the statement in our opinion for background information. A. Direct Testimony of Officer Baptiste At the Minor’s adjudication hearing on February 14, 2022, the court heard testimony from Officer Baptiste. On January 2, 2022, Officer Baptiste was working with training officer, Agent Beard, when they responded to a traffic stop being conducted by Officer Truong. This was at approximately 8:30 p.m. Officer Truong told Officer Baptiste that he had stopped the vehicle with three occupants and found a firearm. At that point, two suspects were sitting on the curb while the officers tried to figure out their identities. One of the suspects was the Minor, who was a passenger in the vehicle. Officer Baptiste and Officer Atkins spoke with the suspects on the curb. Officer Baptiste talked to the Minor, who “identified himself first as Christopher [L.L].” The officers tried to verify his identify through dispatch, but the law enforcement database did not return anything with that name.

2 The Minor was detained at the time this happened, around approximately 8:30 p.m. Officer Baptiste searched the Minor and found “marijuana, some cash, and some rolling papers.” Officer Baptiste could tell it was marijuana because he recognized it and because the Minor said it was marijuana. The substance was in a black canister with some writing on the outside. Agent Beard spoke with the Minor’s mother, who identified him as Jacob K. The officers were outside of the Minor’s house, and Agent Beard spoke with the Minor’s mother. The address of that house was not the address that the Minor had earlier provided to Officer Baptiste. The CAD system revealed that the officers learned the Minor’s real name at 9:21 p.m. The Minor never told Officer Baptiste his name was Jacob K. The CAD revealed that the Minor was detained at 8:23 p.m. The CAD also revealed that the Minor gave the name Christopher L.L. at 8:39 p.m. His correct name, Jacob K., appeared in the CAD at 9:21 p.m. B. Cross Examination of Officer Baptiste On cross examination, Officer Baptiste indicated that seven minutes before he arrived on the scene, officers had found a firearm in the vehicle. The Minor was a passenger in the backseat of the car. The driver had been detained and was on his way to jail when Officer Baptiste arrived on scene. At the time he had been detained, the Minor had no weapons, and nobody suspected him of a crime—he was just merely a passenger in the vehicle that had been stopped. The Minor had been asking to speak with his mother. Officer Baptiste never spoke with the Minor’s mother himself. Officer Baptiste searched the Minor after learning his real name and discovering there was a felony juvenile warrant out for him. Officer Baptiste 3 learned about the Minor’s felony arrest warrant after putting the Minor’s real name in the system. Officer Baptiste found marijuana in a can with some writing on it. He did not test the substance on scene. He also did not weigh the substance on scene. Officer Baptiste said it was marijuana based upon his experience and because the Minor said it was marijuana. Officer Baptiste agreed that about 51 minutes elapsed between when the Minor was detained and when he was identified in the system. The Minor remained detained in handcuffs the entire 51 minutes. The Minor was transported off the scene at 10:00 p.m. DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has submitted 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 a series of issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: 1. Whether the court abused its discretion by terminating the earlier grant of probation. 2. Whether the court abused its discretion by denying the Minor’s request to take judicial notice that his father was deceased. 3. Whether the court abused its discretion when the court allowed Agent Baptiste to testify when the People did not supply a report but did provide a body-worn camera video. 4. Whether the Minor’s detention was unlawful. 5. Whether the court abused its discretion by placing the Minor in Urban Camp.

4 6. Whether the court abused its discretion by ordering $50 in restitution. 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. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

IRION, J.

DATO, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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