In re Miguel S. CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D062991 · 2013-06-13 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from an order
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. J231476
Trial judge: Polly H. Shamoon
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: delinquency
Panel: Cynthia Aaron (author), Alex C. McDonald, Judith D. McConnell

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T06:53Z · confidence low

The trial court committed the juvenile to Camp Barrett for a period not to exceed 365 days following a contested disposition hearing. The Court of Appeal affirmed the order, finding no reasonably arguable appellate issues after an independent review of the record.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Commitment to Camp Barrett for a period not to exceed 365 days “A review of the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issue listed pursuant to Anders, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues.”	abuse of discretion	not reached	unsure The court did not explicitly apply the abuse of discretion standard to the disposition; it performed a Wende/Anders review and found no arguable issues, effectively affirming the trial court's decision without detailed analysis.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appellate counsel to review the record for error when no issues are raised, and the court to conduct an independent review if counsel finds no arguable issues.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires counsel to file a brief identifying any arguable issues, even if none are found, to ensure effective assistance of counsel on appeal.
relied: People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754 — Allows the court to consider dismissed counts for sentencing purposes if the defendant waived the right to challenge the dismissal.
relied: People v. Hume (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 990 — Clarifies that in negotiated dispositions with Harvey waivers, dismissed counts can be considered for sentencing and restitution.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it follows the Wende/Anders protocol for reviewing appeals where counsel finds no arguable issues. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' opinion because it fails to explicitly address the specific legal standard (abuse of discretion) for juvenile dispositions or analyze the merits of the 'possible issue' raised by counsel, relying instead on a conclusory statement that no error was found.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:31Z · confidence low

The juvenile court accepted Miguel S.'s admission to felony grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (c)) and misdemeanor resisting a peace officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)), dismissed the remaining counts with Harvey waivers, and after a contested disposition hearing committed him to Camp Barrett for a period not to exceed 365 days. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief identifying only the possible issue of abuse of discretion in the commitment; the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no reasonably arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Dispositional order committing Miguel to Camp Barrett for a period not to exceed 365 days, removing him from parental custody despite no prior juvenile record “"Was it an abuse of discretion for the judge to detain this appellant, who had no prior juvenile record, remove him from the custody of his parents and commit him to Camp Barrett for 365 days?"”	abuse of discretion	correct	agree with court The opinion frames the only potential issue as abuse of discretion but does not articulate its analysis beyond stating that Wende/Anders review disclosed no arguable issue. The facts recited (probation report noting drug problem, poor behavior in Juvenile Hall, poor school performance, review of a psychological evaluation, consideration of age and home behavior) are the kind of factors that support a juvenile commitment decision under the deferential standard, and the court adopted the probation recommendation. Nothing in the opinion suggests the commitment was arbitrary, so the result appears defensible, but the opinion's reasoning is conclusory and the record described is thin.
Acceptance of Miguel's admission to counts 2 and 3 pursuant to a negotiated disposition with Harvey waivers and dismissal of counts 1, 4, and 5 “Miguel then admitted having committed counts 2 and 3. The court sustained the counts as admitted, and granted the People's motion to dismiss the balance of the counts.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The opinion recites that counsel advised Miguel of the maximum confinement time (three years four months) and that Miguel accepted the People's offer, and the court's Wende review found no error. The opinion does not separately analyze the voluntariness or advisement of the admission, but a Wende review encompasses the whole record and nothing recited suggests a defect. The Harvey waiver is correctly described with citation to People v. Harvey and People v. Hume.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel files a brief raising no issues, the reviewing court must independently review the entire record for arguable issues.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous must so advise the court and may identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
relied: People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754 — Absent a waiver, a sentencing court may not consider facts underlying dismissed counts in a plea bargain; a Harvey waiver permits such consideration.
relied: People v. Hume (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 990 — When a defendant enters a negotiated disposition with counts dismissed subject to a Harvey waiver, the court can consider the dismissed counts for purposes of sentencing and restitution.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion follows the standard Wende/Anders procedure, giving the minor an opportunity to file a supplemental brief and independently reviewing the record, and the facts recited (probation report, psychological evaluation, behavior and drug issues) support the conclusion that the commitment was not an arguable abuse of discretion. It does not explain its reasoning on the Anders issue or cite the juvenile-specific commitment standards, but such brevity is customary in a no-issue Wende affirmance and does not reflect a misreading of the law.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

Filed 6/13/13 In re Miguel S. 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 Miguel S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D062991 THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. J231476)

v. MIGUEL S., Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Polly H.

Shamoon, Judge. Affirmed.

Charles R. Khoury, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. I.

INTRODUCTION

Miguel S. (Miguel) admitted committing one felony count of grand theft (Pen.

Code, § 487, subd. (c))1 (count 2) and one misdemeanor count of resisting or delaying a peace officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)) (count 3). At a contested disposition hearing, the trial court committed Miguel to Camp Barrett for a period not to exceed 365 days. We affirm.

II.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On March 7, 2012, Miguel willfully and unlawfully took a telephone from the victim without the victim's permission (count 2). Miguel attempted to run from an officer who was attempting to investigate the incident, which delayed the officer in completing his duties (count 3).

On May 11, the People filed a petition contending that Miguel committed one felony count of robbery (§ 211) (count 1), one felony count of grand theft (§ 487, subd.

(c)) (count 2), one misdemeanor count of resisting or delaying a peace officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)) (count 3), one misdemeanor count of petty theft (§ 484) (count 4), and one misdemeanor count of being intoxicated in a public place (§ 647, subd. (f)) (count 5). All of the charges stemmed from the March 7 incident.

On August 30, defense counsel informed the court that Miguel was "prepared to accept the People's offer" and that he agreed to admit having committed counts 2 and 3, 1 Unless otherwise specified, all subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 in exchange for a dismissal of counts 1, 4, and 5, with Harvey2 waivers. Defense counsel further stated that Miguel understood that his maximum time of confinement was three years four months. Miguel then admitted having committed counts 2 and 3. The court sustained the counts as admitted, and granted the People's motion to dismiss the balance of the counts.

The probation officer filed a report recommending that Miguel be committed to Camp Barrett for a period not to exceed 365 days. In his report, the officer noted that Miguel had a drug problem, that he had struggled with following directions and had been argumentative with staff while in Juvenile Hall, and that he had performed poorly in school. The probation officer also noted that he had reviewed a psychological evaluation of Miguel and had considered Miguel's age (18) and behavior at home and school in formulating a recommended disposition.

At a contested disposition hearing, the trial court adopted the probation officer's recommendation and committed Miguel to Camp Barrett for a period not to exceed 365 days.

Miguel's appointed appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). After counsel filed a Wende brief, this court granted Miguel the opportunity to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. Miguel has not filed a supplemental brief.

2 (See People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754, 758.) "When the defendant enters a negotiated disposition, with counts dismissed subject to a Harvey waiver, the court can consider the dismissed counts for purposes of sentencing and restitution." (People v. Hume (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 990, 996.) 3 III.

DISCUSSION

A review of the record discloses no error In his brief on appeal, Miguel's counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to review the record for error, as mandated by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.

Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel lists as a possible, but not arguable, issue: "Was it an abuse of discretion for the judge to detain this appellant, who had no prior juvenile record, remove him from the custody of his parents and commit him to Camp Barrett for 365 days?"

A review of the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issue listed pursuant to Anders, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Miguel has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.

IV.

DISPOSITION

The disposition order is affirmed.

AARON, J.

WE CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

McDONALD, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Hume No. A128757 · 2011-06-21
People v. Harvey Crim 21022 · 1979-11-27
People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12