Filed 7 / 26 / 22 In re S.S. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 8.1 115(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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 S.S., a Person Coming Under the

Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

S.S.,

Defendant and Appellant. G060612

(Super. Ct. No. 20DL0220)

O P I N I O N

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County,

Kather ine E. Lewis, Judge. Affirmed.

Erica Gambale, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant

and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *2 FACTS

In July of 2021, after a contested jurisdictional hearing, Superior Court

Judge Katherine Lewis found it to be true that a ppellant S.S. (a juvenile) had violated

Penal Code section 211 (robbery). Specifically, the court found that a ppellant and

another man accosted the victim, pulled his bag from his sh oulder, jumped into a blue

van, and fled. The victim testified he stopped struggling and allowed a ppellant to take

the bag because he was afraid.

The victim of the robbery was “ 100 percent sure ” of his identification of

a ppellant, even though he thought the robber was about the same height he was, and

appellant is roughly six inches taller. Defense called an eyewitness identification expert

who testified about the unreliability of identifications in circumstances such as those

presented in this case. No netheless, the trial judge was convinced and found the petition

true.

DISCUSSION

S.S. filed an appeal, and we appointed counsel to represent him on that

appeal. Counsel , an able and experienced criminal lawyer, filed a brief which fully set

forth th e facts of the case. H er conscientious and very helpful description of the facts of

the case assisted this court in its search for possible issues.

Counsel did not argue against h er client but advised the court s he could find

no issues to argue on appell ant ’ s behalf. Appellant was invited to express his own

objections to the proceedings against him but did not. Under the law, this put the onus on

us to review the record and see if we could find any issues that might result in some kind

of amelioration o f appellant ’ s lot. ( People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 ( Wende ) .) It

should be emphasized that our search was not for issues upon which appellant would

prevail, but only issues upon which he might possibly prevail.

We have examined the record and fou nd no arguable issue. This is not

surprising. In fact, it is what we find in the vast majority of cases in which appellate3

counsel files a Wende brief. Even the most cynical observer of the legal system would

have to recognize that appellate counsel has a financial incentive for finding issues. The

simple matter is counsel makes more money if he/she finds an issue that is arg uable than

if he/she does not. So while it sometimes happens that an appellate court will find issues

after appellate counsel has thrown in the towel, it is unusual.

In this case, there was a trial. The casual observer might posit that in the

tes timony of several witnesses, including an expert in a trial that was extended over

several days, there must have been something that was done wrong, some mistake that

should be examined. But that is not the issue before us. Reversal of a criminal

conviction takes place only when an error is prejudicial to the defendant ’ s case. And in

looking for issues in which the appellant might possib ly prevail, we are mindful that the

error would have to be one that would come within the guarantees of the C onstitution of

our state.

Our Constitution provides in a rticle VI, section 13 that, “ No judgment shall

be set aside, or new trial granted, in any cause, on the ground of misdirection of the jury,

or of the improper admission or rejection of evidence, or for any error as to any matter of

pleading, or for any error as to any matter of procedure, unless, after an examination of

the entire cause, includ ing the evidence, the court shall be of the opinion that the error

complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. ”

We have looked at the evidence brought forth at appellant ’ s trial and can

find no such error. There were no controversial searches or questionable means used in

obtaining statements , nor were there any substantial evidentiary issues at trial

. The key

defense witness was allowed to testify at length, a nd we can find nothing that suggests

any error, much less prejudicial error.

There was a conflict concerning the identification of the appellant, but that

issue was resolved by the trier of fact. The law is clear that the testimony of one witness,4

if believed, is sufficient to support a convict ion, so there is no question about whether

there was substantial evidence to support the conviction.

W e have searched for other issues and have found none that we think has

any chance of success. W e believe counsel ’ s decision to file a Wende brief was well

advised. The judgment is affirmed.

BEDSWORTH, ACTING P. J.

WE CONCUR:

SANCHEZ, J.

MARKS, J.*

*Judge of the Orange County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to

article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.