In re L.F. CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. J231883
- Trial judge
- Browder A. Willis III
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- delinquency
- Panel
- Patricia D. Benke (author), Alex C. McDonald, McINTYRE
Analysis
The juvenile court declared L.F. a ward and committed him to the Breaking Cycles program after true findings on charges of residential burglary, petty theft, evading a police officer, and resisting a public officer. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record under People v. Wende, finding no reasonably arguable issues of error.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Affirmance of the juvenile court's judgment declaring L.F. a ward and committing him to the Breaking Cycles program.“A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738 has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue.” | de novo | correct | agree with court The court applied the standard Wende/Anders review, which requires an independent examination of the record to determine if there are any reasonably arguable issues. The court found none, which is the correct procedural outcome when appointed counsel identifies no arguable errors and the record contains no obvious legal or factual defects warranting reversal. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Appointed appellate counsel must file a brief identifying arguable issues, and if none are found, the court must independently review the record for error.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel may file a brief stating there are no arguable grounds for appeal, provided they submit a copy to the client and the court conducts an independent review.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for cases where appointed counsel finds no arguable issues. It accurately states that the court performed an independent review and found no error, which is the required standard of review in this context.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe juvenile court found true allegations that L.F. committed residential burglary, petty theft, evading an officer with reckless driving, and misdemeanor resisting an officer, declared him a ward, and committed him to the Breaking Cycles program for up to 150 days. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief identifying only the sufficiency of the evidence for the theft finding as a possible issue; L.F. filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issue, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
True finding on petty theft (Pen. Code, § 484), identified by counsel as a possible but not arguable sufficiency-of-evidence issue“whether there was sufficient evidence to support the true finding of theft.” | substantial evidence | correct | agree with court The recited facts show the child's scooter had been moved from the garage to the driveway after L.F. was seen in the driveway, and L.F. admitted entering the property intending to steal the scooter; that supports a theft finding (or at minimum attempt, which the court did not need to parse given no arguable issue). The opinion gives no analysis, but the facts recited suffice under the deferential standard. |
True findings on residential burglary, evading an officer with reckless driving, and resisting an officer, plus wardship and Breaking Cycles commitment, reviewed under Wende for any arguable error“L.F. has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The court conducted the independent record review required by Wende and Anders and found no arguable issue. The opinion contains no substantive analysis of these findings, so there is nothing to disagree with on the face of the opinion; the facts recited (L.F. admitted intent to steal, scooter removed from garage, L.F. seen fleeing the sedan after the pursuit) are consistent with the findings. |
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.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal frivolous may so advise the court but 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: it recites the facts and procedural history, notes the possible issue counsel identified, gives the minor an opportunity to file his own brief, and states the court independently reviewed the record. It offers no reasoning on the identified sufficiency issue, which is typical for Wende dispositions but leaves the analysis unstated.
Opinion
Filed 3/18/13 In re L.F. 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.F., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D062741 THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. J231883)
v. L.F., Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Browder A. Willis III, Judge. Affirmed.
The juvenile court entered true findings L.F. had committed residential burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460), petty theft (Id., § 484), evading a police officer with reckless driving (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)) and misdemeanor resisting a public officer (Pen.
Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)). The court declared L.F. a ward and committed him to the Breaking Cycles program for a period not to exceed 150 days. L.F. appeals. We affirm. BACKGROUND On the afternoon of April 15, 2012, Jeffrey Smith was working in his front yard.
His garage door was about halfway open. Smith saw two males walk by and saw L.F. in his driveway. Smith then noticed his child's scooter was between two cars parked in the driveway. The scooter had previously been in Smith's garage. Smith called out to L.F.
L.F. walked away and Smith followed him. Smith called the police. L.F., who had been detained nearby with two companions, told a police officer he had seen the scooter in the driveway and walked onto the property with the intention of stealing it. L.F. denied having entered the garage.
Shortly after midnight on August 21, 2012, police Officer Patrick Kelly was driving a marked patrol car. He noticed a moving sedan with no headlights. Kelly turned on his overhead lights and siren. The driver accelerated rapidly, sped through stop signs and collided with a truck. The sedan slowed and L.F. opened the driver's side door, jumped out, rolled on the ground and ran into the front yard of a residence. Kelly chased L.F. but lost sight of him. Other officers set up a perimeter. L.F. was detained about a block away.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel lists as a possible, but not arguable, issue: whether there was sufficient evidence to support the true finding of theft.
2 We granted L.F. permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded. A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738 has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. L.F. has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
BENKE, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
MCDONALD, J.
MCINTYRE, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12