In re Robert L. CA4/3

Filed 12/26/13 In re Robert L. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ROBERT L., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, G048032 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. DL043942) v. OPINION ROBERT L.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Cheryl L. Leininger, Judge. Affirmed. Renee Paradis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

After a contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court upheld a petition alleging appellant Robert L. had committed four offenses: aggravated assault (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)); false imprisonment by violence, menace, deceit, or fraud (Pen. Code, § 236); domestic violence battery (Pen. Code, § 243, subd. (3)(1)); and damaging a wireless device to prevent report of a crime (Pen. Code, § 591.5). A vandalism charge was found not to be true. The court found the first two charges to be felonies, and computed appellant’s maximum exposure to custody at five years, three months. The court declared appellant a ward of the court, placed him on supervised probation, and required, inter alia, that he serve 127 days in juvenile custody. Robert timely filed a notice of appeal. We appointed counsel to represent him on that appeal. Counsel filed a brief which set forth the facts of the case. Counsel did not argue against his client, but advised the trial court he could find no issues to argue on appellant’s behalf. Appellant was invited to express his own objections to the proceedings against him, but did not. Under the law, this put the onus on us to review the record and see if we could find any issues that might result in some kind of amelioration of appellant’s lot. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) It should be emphasized that our search was not for issues upon which appellant would prevail, but only issues upon which he might possibly prevail. We have examined the record and found no arguable issue. This is not surprising. In fact, it is what we find in the vast majority of cases in which appellate counsel files a Wende brief. Even the most cynical observer of the appellate system would have to recognize that appellate counsel has a financial incentive for finding issues. The simple matter is counsel makes more money if he/she finds an issue that is arguable than if he/she does not. So while it sometimes happens that an appellate court will find issues after appellate counsel has thrown in the towel, it is unusual.