In re Anthony H. CA4/1

Filed 12/27/24 In re Anthony H. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Anthony H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D083377 THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. JJL000918)

v.

ANTHONY H.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a Judgment of the Superior Court of Imperial County, Marco D. Nunez, Judge. Affirmed. Christopher Stansell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2021, the juvenile court made an adjudication of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) against Anthony H. (the Minor). The record was then sealed.

In 2023, the Imperial County District Attorney filed a petition under

Welfare and Institutions Code1 sections 781 and 786, subdivision (d) to unseal the record for purpose of examining it in a subsequent criminal case. The defense argued the adjudication had been sealed under section 786, subdivision (d) and could not be accessed under section 781. The court found the adjudication should not have been sealed under that section because it was an adjudication for a violent felony. The court deemed that action to be a legal error and ordered the adjudication to be sealed under the proper section. Thereafter the court granted the prosecutor’s petition to inspect the record of the robbery adjudication. The Minor filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo) indicating counsel has not been able to identify any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to exercise its discretion to independently review the record for error. We offered the Minor the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. The facts of the underlying adjudication are not relevant to the resolution of this appeal. It is not entirely clear whether this appeal is controlled by Delgadillo or People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We need not address that issue here because the court in Delgadillo granted appellate courts discretion in such cases to permit the appellate courts to conduct an independent review of the record for error. We have exercised our discretion and independently