In re Aldo R. CA4/1

California Court of Appeal May 18, 2016 No. D069176Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the judgment after finding no reasonably arguable issues for reversal upon independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende and Anders v. California.

Issues

Whether the juvenile court erred by not sealing the records of the first and second petitions.
Whether the issue of counsel's failure to renew the request to expunge the minor's DNA is properly before the court.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We have reviewed the entire record in accordance with Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the issues suggested by counsel, and have not found any reasonably arguable issue for reversal on appeal.”

“The trial court properly limited its sealing order to the third petition, G5856.”

“Further, because Minor's counsel did not renew his request for DNA expungement with the trial court, the issue is not properly before us.”

Filed 5/18/16 In re Aldo R. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ALDO R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D069176 THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. J234348)

ALDO R.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Browder

A. Willis III, Judge. Affirmed.

Kendall Dawson Wasley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for

Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

In 2013 and 2014, the district attorney filed three separate petitions against Aldo

R. (Minor) alleging offenses for unrelated incidents; the alleged offenses in the last two

petitions occurred while Minor was on probation for his prior offense(s). The first

petition (G5284) alleges that he battered his girlfriend in violation of Penal Code section

243, subdivision (e)(1), which Minor admitted. The court declared his wardship and

placed him on probation.

The second petition (G5673) alleges that Minor violated a protective order over

his girlfriend (Pen. Code, § 273.6, subd. (a)), which he again admitted. The court

In re Aldo R. CA4/1

AI Brief

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

ALDO R.,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISCUSSION

DISPOSITION

MCDONALD, J.

IRION, J.

AI Brief