In re Edgar T. CA4/3

California Court of Appeal Feb 25, 2026 No. G064593Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the juvenile court's judgment after conducting an independent review of the record and finding no arguable issues on appeal.

Issues

Whether the adjudication violated Penal Code section 654.
Whether the evidence established the minor's criminal intent.
Whether the probation conditions were appropriate.
Whether the court erred in declining to strike eyewitness testimony.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“After independently reviewing the record, we affirm the judgment.”

“This court has reviewed the record on appeal, and we find no arguable issues, including the four potential issues identified by counsel.”

Filed 2/25/26 In re Edgar T. CA4/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re EDGAR T., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, G064593 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 24DL0568) v. OPINION EDGAR T.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Vibhav Mittal, Judge. Affirmed. Ariana D’Agostino, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

A juvenile court (the court) found true that 14-year-old Edgar T. (Edgar) committed two crimes: an attempted murder and an assault with a firearm. The court also found true a weapon enhancement. The court ordered Edgar to serve a term in the juvenile hall. Edgar filed a notice of appeal. Edgar’s counsel filed an opening brief identifying no arguable issues on appeal. (See Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders); People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Edgar has not filed a supplemental brief on his own behalf. After independently reviewing the record, we affirm the judgment.

I. 1 BRIEF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On March 29, 2024, at about 5:00 p.m., a dark colored Hyundai sedan pulled into a Santa Ana church parking lot and parked. Four people got out of the car: Edgar, a man dressed in black, a woman, and a small child. The group loitered in the parking lot. A few minutes later, Frank S. (the victim), walked into the parking lot and started to get into a white Ford Explorer. Edgar walked by the Ford Explorer and looked at it several times. Edgar walked toward the man in black, who handed Edgar a pink purse. The woman and the child returned to the Hyundai sedan. Edgar took an object out of the pink purse, placed it in his front waistband, and dropped the purse. Edgar then walked quickly towards the Ford Explorer, which was now leaving the parking lot. Edgar produced a black

In re Edgar T. CA4/3

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

III. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

MOORE, ACTING P. J.

SANCHEZ, J.

AI Brief