Filed 6/30/26 P. v. Ballester 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
THE PEOPLE, D086012
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD302834)
ELEANOR LECLAIR BALLESTER,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
John Pro, Judge. Affirmed.
Heather Monasky, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Eleanor Leclair Ballester was charged it one count of kidnapping (Pen.
Code, § 207, subd. (a)) and child abduction (Pen. Code, § 278.5, subd. (a)).
She was allowed to represent herself at one point pretrial. The court later
revoked her self-representation and declined to reinstate Ballester to pro per
status.
While the case was pending trial, Ballester filed two separate notices of
appeal with this court. (Case Nos. D085119 and D085694.)
In January 2025, Ballester entered into a plea agreement. She pleaded
guilty to two counts of child abduction. Ballester was placed on mandatory
supervision pending her February sentencing hearing. The court later found
Ballester violate the terms of her supervised release. Ballester was
sentenced to a two-year term in custody.
Ballester filed a timely notice of appeal.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v.
Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, indicating counsel has not been able to identify
any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to
independently review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered
Ballester the opportunity to file her own brief, but she has not responded to
our invitation.
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks
the court to independently review the record for error. To assist the court in
its review, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738,
counsel has identified four possible issues that were considered in evaluating
the potential merits of this appeal.
1. Did the trial court have jurisdiction to accept Ballester’s guilty
plea when case No. D085119 was pending in this court?
2. Did the court have jurisdiction to sentence Ballester while the
appeal in case No. D085694 was pending in this court?
3. Did the court err in revoking Ballester’s pro per status?
4. Did the court err in sentencing Ballester to a two-year middle
term when she had no prior criminal history?
2
We have independently reviewed the record for error as required by
Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal
on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Ballester in this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.*
WE CONCUR:
O’ROURKE, Acting P. J.
DATO, J.
* Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate
District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the
California Constitution.
3