In re Mylicia G. CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from an order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. JCM242239
- Trial judge
- Rohanee Zapanta
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- delinquency
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), O'Rourke, William S. Dato
Analysis
The trial court ordered the minor to pay $642 in restitution for a robbery, payable jointly with the minor's parents at $25 per month. The appellate court affirmed the order 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
Order requiring the minor to pay $642 in restitution, jointly with the minor's parents, at a rate of $25 per month.“The court ordered restitution in the amount requested. The order requires payment at the rate of $25 per month and is jointly payable by the Minor and the Minor’s parents.” | unclear | not reached | unsure The opinion does not explicitly state the standard of review (e.g., abuse of discretion) applied to the restitution order. It simply states the court reviewed the record and found no arguable issues. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to identify arguable issues or, if none exist, to file a brief asking the court to review the record for error.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires counsel to identify possible issues considered in preparing the appeal when filing a no-merit brief.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound in its application of the Wende/Anders framework for reviewing a no-merit appeal. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' opinion because it fails to address the substantive legal arguments regarding the propriety of joint liability for parents or the calculation of damages, relying solely on the absence of identified issues in the brief.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe juvenile court accepted the Minor's admission to robbery with knife use, committed her to the Youthful Offender Unit Program for up to 480 days, and after a restitution hearing at which the victim testified ordered $642 in victim restitution payable at $25 per month jointly by the Minor and her parents. On appeal from the restitution order only, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief, the Minor filed nothing, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Victim restitution order of $642, payable at $25 per month, jointly payable by the Minor and the Minor's parents“The victim calculated her losses at $642. The court ordered restitution in the amount requested. The order requires payment at the rate of $25 per month and is jointly payable by the Minor and the Minor’s parents.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The court did not state a standard of review because it conducted independent Wende review rather than resolving a contested issue. A restitution order would ordinarily be reviewed for abuse of discretion, and the record described supports the order: the Minor admitted the robbery, the victim testified to specific losses (phone $290, cash $300, wallet $25, food stamps, damaged backpack) totaling the amount ordered, and the court set a modest payment schedule. Nothing in the opinion suggests the amount lacked a factual basis or that joint parental liability was improper in a juvenile restitution order. The affirmance is consistent with the record quoted. |
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 issues before affirming.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous should file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal; the court noted counsel's noncompliance but found the narrow record permitted review anyway.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion follows the Wende procedure, recites the offense, disposition, and the restitution evidence, notes counsel's failure to identify possible issues under Anders, and explains why independent review was nonetheless feasible on a brief record. Because no issues were raised and the record described supports the restitution amount, the affirmance is adequately reasoned for a Wende disposition.
Opinion
Filed 2/15/23 In re Mylicia G. 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 Mylicia G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D080891 THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. JCM242239)
v. MYLICIA G., Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Rohanee Zapanta, Judge. Affirmed. John Derrick, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In this case, 16-year-old Mylicia G. (the Minor) admitted committing a robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) and admitted the use of a knife in the commission of the offense. The court committed the Minor to the Youthful Offender Unit Program for a period not to exceed 480 days. Thereafter, the court held a restitution hearing at which the victim testified. The victim said the perpetrators, including the Minor, stole her phone valued at $290, $300 in cash, a wallet containing $25, and her food stamps. Her backpack was also damaged during the robbery. The victim calculated her losses at $642. The court ordered restitution in the amount requested. The order requires payment at the rate of $25 per month and is jointly payable by the Minor and the Minor’s parents. The Minor filed a timely notice of appeal challenging only the restitution order. 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 the Minor’s own brief on appeal, but the Minor has not responded. DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to review the record for error. Counsel has not complied with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) by identifying the possible issues that counsel considered in preparing this appeal. We disapprove of counsel’s failure to deal with Anders, however, in this case the appeal is narrow, and the pertinent record is brief. We have been able to review the record without counsel’s compliance with Anders. 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.
2 DISPOSITION The restitution 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