In re Paul R. CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. J231-421
- Trial judges
- Carolyn M. Caietti; Browder Willis
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- other
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Cynthia Aaron, Joan K. Irion
Analysis
The juvenile court adjudicated the minor a ward of the court for misdemeanor vandalism and granted probation. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to Wende and Anders, finding no reasonably arguable issues of error.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Adjudication of wardship and probation for misdemeanor vandalism (Penal Code § 594, subd. (a) & (b)(2)(A))“Following a contested adjudication hearing, the juvenile court found true an allegation that Paul R. (the Minor) committed vandalism by defacing property with graffiti causing damage of less than $400, a misdemeanor violation of Penal Code section 594, subdivisions (a) and (b)(2)(A).” | de novo | not reached | agree with court The appellate court did not review the merits of the adjudication because the Wende/Anders review found no arguable issues. The court affirmed the judgment based on the absence of error in the record. |
Admission of evidence of prior act of putting up graffiti in the bedroom of his residence“Whether the juvenile court erred in admitting evidence of the Minor's prior act of putting up graffiti in the bedroom of his residence” | abuse of discretion | not reached | unsure The court identified this as a possible issue in the Anders brief but concluded after independent review that it was not reasonably arguable, thus not reaching a specific legal analysis of the admission. |
Ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to suppress identification, object to unlawful seizure/arrest, or move for dismissal)“Whether Minor's counsel was ineffective for (a) failing to seek to suppress the eyewitness identification as unduly suggestive; (b) failing to object to the eyewitness identification as the product of an unlawful seizure; (c) failure to object to the eyewitness identification as the product of an unlawful arrest; and (d) failing to move for dismissal of the case following the completion of the prosecution's case-in-chief (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 701.1).” | de novo | not reached | unsure The court listed these as possible issues in the Anders brief but determined they were not reasonably arguable after reviewing the entire record, thereby affirming the judgment without detailed analysis of the ineffectiveness claims. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appellate counsel to file a brief identifying possible issues and the court to conduct an independent review of the record when counsel finds no arguable issues.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel who believes an appeal is frivolous, requiring a brief identifying possible issues and court review.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the Wende/Anders framework for reviewing appeals where counsel finds no arguable issues. It accurately states that the court reviewed the entire record and found no reasonably arguable issues, which is the standard outcome for such cases.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionFollowing a contested adjudication hearing, the juvenile court found true a misdemeanor vandalism (graffiti) allegation under Penal Code section 594, declared the Minor a ward, and placed him with his parents on probation. Appellate counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief identifying possible but not arguable issues; the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no reasonably arguable issues, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
True finding on the misdemeanor vandalism allegation and the resulting wardship and probation disposition“We have reviewed the entire record in accordance with Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, and have not found any reasonably arguable appellate issues.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The opinion recites eyewitness testimony that the worker saw the Minor bent over with a can in hand making graffiti, observed fresh graffiti where he stood, and later identified him; conflicting defense testimony was for the trier of fact to weigh. On a Wende review the court's conclusion that no arguable issue exists is consistent with the facts stated. |
Admission of evidence of the Minor's prior act of putting graffiti in his bedroom (issue identified by counsel under Anders)“Whether the juvenile court erred in admitting evidence of the Minor's prior act of putting up graffiti in the bedroom of his residence” | unclear | correct | unsure The court listed the issue but did not analyze it; it implicitly found it not arguable after independent record review. The opinion gives no detail about the basis for admission (e.g., Evid. Code § 1101(b) identity or intent), so the correctness of the ruling cannot be independently verified from the opinion. |
Potential ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to challenge the eyewitness identification (suggestiveness, unlawful seizure, unlawful arrest) and failing to move for dismissal under Welfare and Institutions Code section 701.1“Whether Minor's counsel was ineffective for (a) failing to seek to suppress the eyewitness identification as unduly suggestive” | unclear | correct | unsure The court identified these as possible issues and, after reviewing the entire record, found none reasonably arguable. The opinion provides no record facts about the showup or the stop beyond a brief description, so there is no basis in the opinion to conclude the court erred, but also little to confirm the analysis. |
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 and file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
The appellate opinion: sound — The court followed the required Wende/Anders procedure: it summarized the facts and proceedings, listed the issues counsel flagged, offered the Minor a chance to file a supplemental brief, and independently reviewed the record before affirming. The opinion does not substantively discuss the flagged issues, which is permissible in a Wende disposition but leaves the reader unable to evaluate them.
Opinion
Filed 5/1/13 In re Paul 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 PAUL R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D062846 THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. J231-421)
v. PAUL R., Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Carolyn M. Caietti and Browder Willis, Judges. Affirmed.
Following a contested adjudication hearing, the juvenile court found true an allegation that Paul R. (the Minor) committed vandalism by defacing property with graffiti causing damage of less than $400, a misdemeanor violation of Penal Code section 594, subdivisions (a) and (b)(2)(A). The Minor was declared a ward of the court and granted probation, subject to certain conditions. The Minor was placed with his parents.
Counsel for the Minor has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) raising possible, but not arguable issues. We offered the Minor the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On the afternoon of December 27, 2011, a maintenance worker at an apartment complex observed the Minor "doing" graffiti on the sidewalk. The worker testified the Minor was alone, wearing a sweatshirt, a cap and a backpack. The Minor was bent over with a can in his right hand.
The worker confronted the Minor, who then ran away into the back of the complex. The worker approached the sidewalk where the Minor had been located and observed fresh graffiti. He then reported the incident to the property manager.
About five minutes later a black Ford Ranger truck pulled up to the property. The Minor emerged from the property, got into the truck and it drove away. The manager called police.
Police located the truck and then brought the worker to the location where the truck was stopped. The worker viewed the driver and the passenger from the truck and identified the Minor as the person who "did" the graffiti.
The defense presented two witnesses who testified they were with the Minor that day at the complex. They said they were there to meet some girls and that the Minor was 2 always in their presence. The Minor also testified and denied placing the graffiti on the sidewalk.
DISCUSSION
As we have previously noted, appellate counsel has filed a brief indicating he is unable to identify any argument for reversal and asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders, supra, 386 U.S.
738, the brief identifies possible, but not arguable issues:
1. Whether the juvenile court erred in admitting evidence of the Minor's prior act of putting up graffiti in the bedroom of his residence;
2. Whether Minor's counsel was ineffective for (a) failing to seek to suppress the eyewitness identification as unduly suggestive; (b) failing to object to the eyewitness identification as the product of an unlawful seizure; (c) failure to object to the eyewitness identification as the product of an unlawful arrest; and (d) failing to move for dismissal of the case following the completion of the prosecution's case-in-chief (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 701.1).
We have reviewed the entire record in accordance with Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, and have not found any reasonably arguable appellate issues. Competent counsel has represented the Minor on this appeal.
3 DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
AARON, J.
IRION, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12