Filed 10/22/26 P. v. Jeremiah E. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D087228
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. J244859)
v.
JEREMIAH E.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Marissa A. Bejarano, Judge. Affirmed.
B. Jolene Lewis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
This appeal arises from true findings on petitions filed in the juvenile
court and the disposition order under Welfare and Institutions Code section
602. Multiple petitions were filed in the juvenile court involving allegations
of robbery, burglary and assault. Jeremiah E. (the Minor) admitted three
separate robberies, resisting, and three separate burglaries.
In October 2025 the Minor admitted robbery and probation violations.
The court ordered Minor into the Healing Opportunities for Personal
Empowerment (HOPE) program for a period not to exceed 480 days. The
maximum period of confinement was determined to be 7 years 8 months.
The Minor filed a timely notice of appeal.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to 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 advised the Minor that he
could file his own brief on appeal. The Minor has not responded to our notice
by filing a supplemental brief.
DISCUSION
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 two possible issues that were considered in evaluating
the potential merits of this appeal.
1. Whether the Minor’s commitment was correctly calculated.
2. Whether the court erred in committing the Minor to the HOPE
program.
We have independently reviewed the record in this case as required by
Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal
on appeal. Competent counsel has represented the Minor in this appeal.
2
DISPOSITION
The disposition order is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.
WE CONCUR:
DATO, Acting P. J.
RUBIN, 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