Filed 3/26/15 In re Brandon B. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 BRANDON B., a Person Coming
Under the Juvenile Court Law.
D066809
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. J233082)
v.
BRANDON B.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, David B.
Oberholtzer, Judge. Affirmed.
Jason L. Jones, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
This appeal arises from a juvenile court proceeding in which it was alleged that
Brandon B. (the Minor) committed first degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460; Welf.
& Inst. Code, § 602). Following an adjudication hearing, the juvenile court found the
allegations in the petition to be true.
The Minor was declared a ward of the court and committed to the Camp Barrett
program for a period not to exceed 365 days. The Minor filed a timely notice of appeal.
Prior to the commencement of the adjudication hearing, the prosecutor informed
the court that the victim was a research attorney for the Superior Court. The judge
recognized the victim and said the victim had done some research for the court some
years before. The judge informed the parties he was certain he would be impartial.
Neither party made any comment and nobody suggested the judge should recuse himself.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25
Cal.3d 436 (Wende), and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), indicating
he has been unable to identify any reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal.
Counsel asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende.
We offered the Minor an opportunity to file his own brief on appeal but he has not
responded.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On April 11, 2013 the residents of a home in the Tierrasanta area of San Diego
discovered their home had been burglarized. The home was ransacked and a number of
personal items had been stolen.
Latent fingerprints were taken from the crime scene. A fingerprint examiner
testified that two of the fingerprints found inside the house were those of the Minor.
The true finding that the Minor committed the burglary was based on the
fingerprint evidence.
2
DISCUSSION
As we have noted above, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Wende, supra,
25 Cal.3d 436, indicating he has not been able to identify any reasonably arguable issue
for reversal on appeal. In compliance with Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, counsel has
identified possible, but not arguable issues to assist the court in our review of the record:
1. Whether the juvenile court erred in denying the Minor's motion to exclude
testimony regarding the analysis of the latent fingerprints?
2. Whether the judge erred by failing to recuse himself when he discovered the
victim was employed by the Superior Court and recognized the victim as a research
attorney who had done some research work for the judge years earlier?
We have reviewed the entire record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and
have not identified any reasonably arguable issue for reversal on appeal. The Minor has
been represented by competent counsel on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
AARON, J.
IRION, J.
3