Filed 8/24/26 In re A.D. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 A.D., a Person Coming Under
the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, G065465
v. (Super. Ct. No. 24DL1604)
A.D., OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County,
Joseph Kang, Judge. Affirmed.
Jo Pastore, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
* * *
Following a contested hearing, a juvenile court (the court) found
true allegations that 15-year-old A.D. had committed two misdemeanor
crimes: domestic battery and resisting arrest. The court placed A.D. on
probation with various terms and conditions. A.D. filed a notice of appeal.
A.D.’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).) A.D. 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
A police officer responded to a call at a park and saw A.D. and a
female fighting. A.D. was standing over the female, and it looked like A.D.
was lifting her and throwing her on the ground. The officer directed them
both to sit, which they initially did. As the officer spoke to the female, A.D.
stood up and said he was innocent. The officer ordered A.D. to sit down. The
officer began to handcuff A.D., but he resisted by holding his left wrist with
his right hand, which prevented the officer from pulling both of A.D.’s hands
behind his back. The officer eventually took A.D. to the ground.
The officer noticed injuries to the female, which included bleeding
from her mouth and from the side of her face. The female told the police that
A.D. had struck her with both hands, and when she fell to the ground she hit
1
In Wende appeals, the California Supreme Court has directed
appellate courts to outline “a brief description of the facts and procedural
history of the case, the crimes of which the defendant was convicted, and the
punishment imposed.” (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109–110.)
2
her face. The female said that she and A.D. were in a dating relationship.
Procedural History
The People filed an amended petition charging A.D. with felony
domestic battery with corporal injury, and misdemeanor resisting arrest.
(Pen. Code, §§ 273.5, subd. (a), 148, subd. (a)(1).) Following a contested
hearing, the court found true a lesser included misdemeanor domestic battery
offense, and found true the misdemeanor resisting arrest charge. (Pen. Code,
§§ 243, subd. (e)(1), 148, subd. (a)(1).)
The court declared A.D. a ward of the court and placed him on
probation with various terms and conditions, including 20 hours community
service, an anger management program, and standard fines.
A.D. filed a timely notice of appeal. A.D.’s appointed counsel filed
an opening brief raising four issues counsel had considered, but counsel did
not raise any arguable “grounds for relief.” This court has not received a
supplement brief from A.D.
II.
DISCUSSION
When a defendant’s appellate counsel identifies no arguable
issues on appeal, an appellate court must independently review the record for
arguable issues. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441–442.)
Generally, “an arguable issue on appeal consists of two elements.
First, the issue must be one which, in counsel’s professional opinion, is
meritorious. That is not to say that the contention must necessarily achieve
success. Rather, it must have a reasonable potential for success. Second, if
successful, the issue must be such that, if resolved favorably to the appellant,
3
the result will either be a reversal or a modification of the judgment.” (People
v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109.)
In a “Wende brief,” appellate counsel may identify potential
issues that were considered, but not raised on appeal. (See People v. Kent
(2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 293, 296 [the listing of potential issues (so-called
“Anders issues”) is welcomed and encouraged]; but see People v. Garcia (2018)
24 Cal.App.5th 314, 325 [the listing of potential issues “is not necessarily
helpful to the reviewing court or to an appellant”].)
Here, counsel identified four issues that were considered, but not
raised on appeal: (1) sufficiency of the evidence; (2) self-defense; (3) true
finding of an uncharged lesser included offense; and (4) lawfulness of the
arrest regarding the resisting arrest true finding.
This court has reviewed the entire record on appeal, and we find
no arguable issues, including the four “Anders” issues identified by counsel.
(See People v. Johnson, supra, 123 Cal.App.3d at p. 109 [“the issue must be
such that, if resolved favorably to the appellant, the result will either be a
reversal or a modification of the judgment”].)
4
III.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
MOORE, ACTING P. J.
WE CONCUR:
DELANEY, J.
SERVINO, J.
5